[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1608526139653-0.jpg (228.26 KB, 1024x683, permaculture1.jpg)

File: 1608526139653-1.jpg (286.24 KB, 1024x973, pclt-1024x973.jpg)

 No.7136[Last 50 Posts]

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.

 No.7137

Give me an example of permaculture mass production as opposed to boutique estate expensive foods and I'll listen

 No.7138

>>7137
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/

 No.7139

>>7137
>boutique estate expensive foods
Cuba uses it to not rely on oil imports

 No.7140

>>7139
Tell us more about how they do this

 No.7141

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.

 No.7142

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

 No.7143

>>7141
>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?

 No.7144

>>7143
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.

 No.7145

>>7144
>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?

 No.7146

>>7145
>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?

 No.7147

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.

 No.7148

>>7146
Use reactor to produce hydrogen fuel

 No.7149

>>7147
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.

 No.7150

File: 1608526140944.jpg (48.71 KB, 775x235, graphene.jpg)

>>7146
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)

 No.7151

>>7149
>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
>>7150
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.

 No.7152

>>7151
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.

 No.7153

>>7152
*(or even carbon negative)

 No.7154

>>7152
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..
>>7153
Carbon negative will probably be necessary.

 No.7155

>>7154
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.

 No.7156

>>7155
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?

 No.7157

>>7156
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.

 No.7158

Individual virtue is no substitute for communal action, don't be led astray by this lifestylist heretic.

 No.7159

>>7158
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.

 No.7160

>>7159
>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.

 No.7161

>>7144
>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.

 No.7162

>>7160
Blame this on me being a shitty writer and arguerererer. I fully agree with you otherwise.

 No.7163

File: 1608526141981.jpg (20.83 KB, 352x300, feelrades.jpg)

>>7162
comradely feels

 No.7164

>>7136
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.

 No.7165

>>7164
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.

 No.7166

>>7164
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.

 No.7167

Is it still possible to grow & harvest certain foods like tubers all year round within the permaculture system?

 No.7168

>>7167
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.

 No.7169

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.

 No.7170

>>7169
>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

 No.7171

File: 1608526142821.jpg (149.13 KB, 600x600, Juglans nigra.jpg)

>>7166
That's a nice garden you have there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
t. Walnut Tree

 No.7172

>>7136
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 ?

 No.7173

>>7172
>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.

 No.7174

>>7138
>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.

 No.7175

>>7173
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.

 No.7176

>>7173
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?

 No.7177

>>7175
>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.

 No.7178

>>7176
>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.

 No.7179

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

 No.7180

>>7166
Being able to just pick your foods would be so much less alienating than relying on sterile supermarkets.

>>7170
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.

 No.7181

>>7175
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

 No.7182

>>7173
>>7174
>>7175
>>7177
>>7180
>>7181
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.
>>7179
>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 ?

 No.7183

>>7182
>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.

 No.7184

>>7182
>wage
You mean labour creditsl

>>7183
The wealth of nations comes from the effective division of labour.

 No.7185

>>7183
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

 No.7186

File: 1608526144128.jpg (57.81 KB, 580x679, 1435950448205.jpg)

>>7184
>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

 No.7187

>>7184
>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!

 No.7188

>>7183
>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.
>>7185
>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

 No.7189

>>7188
>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

 No.7190

>>7189
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.

 No.7191

>>7190
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

 No.7192

>>7191
>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.

 No.7193

>>7191
>>7189
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.

 No.7194

>>7192
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

 No.7195

>>7191
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.
>>7193
>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.

 No.7196

>>7194
>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.

 No.7197

>>7195
> 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.

 No.7198

How do I learn the basics of sustainable agriculture bros.. where do I even start?

 No.7199

>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

 No.7200

>>7198
Gaia's Garden and One Straw Revolution
>>7199
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.

 No.7201

>>7200
>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.

 No.7202

>>7201
>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.

 No.7203

>>7201
>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

 No.7204

>>7203
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.

>>7202
> 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.

 No.7205

>>7204
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.

 No.7206

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.

 No.7207

>>7204
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.

 No.7208


 No.7209

>>7208
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.

 No.7210

Also, 10 billion people can't survive on nothing but fucking grains and carbs.

 No.7211

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?

 No.7212

>>7211
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.

 No.7213

>>7181
Its pretty enjoyable to drive a tractor for half a day. Picking berries will hurt your back after half a day.

 No.7214

>>7187
Whats the point of forcing inefficiency? Or is socialism a excuse for doing useless shit all day for you?

 No.7215

>>7214
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.

 No.7216

>>7215
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.

 No.7217

>>7216
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.

 No.7218

>>7213
>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.

 No.7219

>>7209
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.

 No.7220

>>7136
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

 No.7221

>>7220
>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.

 No.7222

>>7221
>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

 No.7223

>>7222
Four generations of one child policy and all of a sudden there's plenty of land, even with climate change and environmental degradation.

 No.7224

>>7223
>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.

 No.7225

>>7222
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.

 No.7226

>>7223
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.

 No.7227

>>7225
>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
>>7226
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.

 No.7228

>>7227
>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.

 No.7229

>>7227
There is a point where productivity/person decreases. I don't want to live in an urban cage on [i]grass[/i] a vegan diet just so the pop cap is somewhat higher. Reproduction being a right is liberalism.

 No.7230

>>7229
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.

 No.7231

>>7229
>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.

 No.7232

>>7231
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.

 No.7233

>>7228
>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.
>>7231
>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.
>>7231
>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

 No.7234

>>7233
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.

 No.7235

Is there a recommended introductory book for getting into permaculture?

 No.7236

>>7235
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

 No.7237

>>7234
>Earth will continue to be a finite system, no matter how long it takes to overcrowd that finite system.
Then expand into space.

 No.7238

>>7237
>Another space cadet

 No.7239

File: 1608526148495.png (286.32 KB, 503x522, hotpockets.png)

>>7234
>overpopulation has not yet been a problem
wut

 No.7240

>>7167
>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?

 No.7241

>>7172
> 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.

 No.7242

>>7182
>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.

 No.7243

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

 No.7244

>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”.

 No.7245

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

 No.7246

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.

 No.7247

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.

 No.7248


 No.7249


 No.7250


 No.7251


 No.7252


 No.7253


 No.7254

Based bookposter

 No.7255

File: 1608526151074.jpg (485.38 KB, 950x4050, I4ZsZhw.jpg)

look at all the fuckin books

Here's some plants for circulating the air

 No.7256

>>7255
Why would I grown anything except for chrysanthemum (anal) and lily (lesbians)?

 No.7257

>>7256
The more plants the more filtering happens, and variety is more interesting.

 No.7258

https://internationalistcommune.com/rojavas-economics-and-the-future-of-the-revolution/

&ltEconomic 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.

 No.7259

Has anybody on the site actually done permaculture?

 No.7260

>>7259
No, you have to own land for that.

 No.7261


 No.7262

>>7261
Do you understand the difference between agriculture and reforestation you fucking mouthbreathing brainlet?

 No.7263

>>7262
You can do either of those guerilla style in the right context. Don't be a defeatist.

 No.7264

>>7259
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.

 No.7265

https://permaculturenews.org/2020/01/07/we-must-build-a-more-humane-economy-before-its-too-late/?mc_cid=b2e4e51629&mc_eid=14bc1848b2

&ltAustralia’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.

 No.7266

>>7239
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.

 No.7267

>>7266
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.

 No.7268

>>7267
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.

 No.7269

>>7182
Late response sorry. So I basically tossed a thought out their, I'll try to extend this in another post soon.

 No.7270

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!

 No.7271

>>7270
Are you willing to dissect and scan your books for the education of all degenerates on this mongolian throat singing forum?

 No.7272

File: 1608526152615.jpg (91.82 KB, 688x807, moneymaking.jpg)

>>7271
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

 No.7273

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?

 No.7274

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.

 No.7275


 No.7276

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.

 No.7277

>>7273
seed packets are super easy to steal in my experience. Just make sure to not look sus and buy something small when leaving.

 No.7278

>>7274
>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.
>>7275
these videos seem decent but their anti-technology stance is idealist nonsense.
>>7276
>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 ?

 No.7279

File: 1608526153211.jpg (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

 No.7280

>>7279
mehhhh where is the AGPL of seeds

 No.7281

>>7280
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

 No.7282

>>7278
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.

 No.7283

>>7282
You're a species traitor

 No.7284

>>7282
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.

 No.7285

>>7181
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.

 No.7286

>>7189
>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

 No.7287

>>7194
>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.

 No.7288

>>7278
>anti-technology
maybe I missed that part but not everyone is like that
>>7243

 No.7289

>>7191
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.

 No.7290

File: 1608526154119-0.png (33.88 KB, 950x285, ossi_header.png)

File: 1608526154119-1.jpg (1017.61 KB, 1633x4537, hdglkf.j.jpg)

>>7280
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.

 No.7291

>>7278
>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.

 No.7292

>>7282
>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 >>7283 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.

>>7291
>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".

>>7290
I think OSSI gave up on licensing, they now just offer a pledge:

&ltIn 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 >>7279
https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/licence

 No.7293

>>7292
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.

 No.7294

>>7292
>>7293
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.

 No.7295

>>7294
However, if they are, so be it and continue to carry on.

 No.7296

>>7292
> current size of the population
ah state of nature AND a Malthusian
>>7292
>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.

 No.7297

>>7292
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

 No.7298

>>7287
>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

 No.7299

bump

 No.7300

>>7224
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.

>>7233
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.

 No.7301

>>7300
>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

 No.7302

>>7301
>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.

 No.7303

>>7189
Picking fruit from your grandma's dacha sucks ass
t. Russian

 No.7304

File: 1608526155352.jpeg (83.24 KB, 800x800, 5d2w3e4rfztu.jpeg)

>>7297
>human being is that it is being that is plastic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A
chortle

 No.7305

>>7302
I think your statements are not motivated by actual data or research, can you back any of this up.

 No.7306

>>7303
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.

 No.7307

>>7305
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.

>>7306
>>7303
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.

 No.7308

bumpu

 No.7309

Pic 1 of the OP reminds me of Haitian bean farms

 No.7310

>>7309
Context?

 No.7311

>>7310
Just a comment. I have a Haitian friend who has 3 chunks of land that he cultivates.

 No.7312

>>7311
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

 No.7313


 No.7314

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.

 No.7315

For any of this to function we need collectivization and planned organization.

 No.7316

>>7314
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.

 No.7317

>>7315
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

 No.7318

>>7136
permaculture is in a socialist context, objectively preferable to agriculture however I advocate [b]only[/b] for GMO urban permaculture where instead of parks you have collectivized permacultures.

Only because I hate tree-larpers.

 No.7319

plant a tree

 No.7320

>>7319
always a good idea.

 No.7321

>>7319
>plant a fruit tree
FTFY

 No.7322

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?

 No.7323

>>7322
Bumping for this user's question

 No.7324

>>7323
Upon reflection I should probably post this question somewhere other than a 500 user communist forum

 No.7325

>>7322
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

 No.7326

>>7324
But yes, asking on dedicated forums would be wise

 No.7327

>plant something
>it dies/gets sick/rots
Every time

 No.7328

>>7322
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?

 No.7329

>>7328
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

 No.7330

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.

 No.7331


 No.7332

>>7324
Hey w're dialectical and thus more helpful

 No.7333


 No.7334

>>7333
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.

 No.7335

File: 1608526158031.jpg (21.56 KB, 680x356, 398.jpg)


 No.7336

File: 1608526158156.jpg (388.93 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (2).jpg)

WHOS PLANTING CROPS IN THEIR LAWN

LETS GOOOO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-VskDFPpM

 No.7337

File: 1608526158257.jpg (156.79 KB, 1280x720, maxyjpg.jpg)

>>7336
WHOS PLANTING CROPS IN OTHER PEOPLES LAWNS

 No.7338

>>7337
Plant crops on public ground so the people can eat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvtqKMxZ95s

 No.7339

>>7338
I fockin' knew you were gonna post dat motherfucking video from dat motherfucker. I love ya comrade, go fuck yourself. Bye.

 No.7340

>>7339
What is the reference here?

 No.7341

>>7136
Hydroponics-aquaculture hybrid structures would probably be most optimal for food production

 No.7342

>>7340
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

 No.7343

>>7340
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.

 No.7344

>>7136
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?

 No.7345

>>7344
Sorry of this comes off as self-helpy, but maybe you can start really really small?

 No.7346

>>7345
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.

 No.7347

>>7346
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.

 No.7348

>>7336
>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.

 No.7349

>>7347
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.

 No.7350

https://permacultureguidebook.org/complete-guidebook/
Here's a really good freely distributed book, by the way

 No.7351

>>7346
I recommend starting with mint. It's almost impossible to kill.

 No.7352

>>7351
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.

 No.7353

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.

 No.7354

>>7353
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.

 No.7355

bump

 No.7356

File: 1608526159916.png (369.36 KB, 720x480, usda hardiness.png)

>>7345
>>7346
>>7344
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. >>7331
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.

>>7353
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.

 No.7357

It makes a lot of sense. You can get halfway there just by replacing your city's trees with fruit trees and harvesting them.

 No.7358

Fuck permaculture, hydroponics gangg

 No.7359

>>7357
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.

>>7358
Permaculture
&ltminimal physical labor
&ltlots of design labor in setup
&ltrequires and encourages systemic knowledge
&ltwill continue to function fine if you completely neglect it

Hydroponics
&ltregular maintenance, and you have to build shit
&ltbasic machine design to make shit water
&ltgenerally uses monocultures
&ltfails to take advantage of natural plant growth

 No.7360

>>7359
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.

 No.7361

>>7360
>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 >>7166
>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 >>7255
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.

 No.7362

>>7188
>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.

 No.7363

File: 1608526160550.jpeg (22.43 KB, 313x235, 546rftz.jpeg)

>>7362
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.

 No.7364

>>7359
Wouldn't said climber plant eventually suffercate and starve out the tree though? Thus you loose your climbing plant and a tree?

 No.7365

>>7364
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.

>>7363
>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.

 No.7366

>>7365
>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.

 No.7367


 No.7368

>>7366
>So perma-culture as a service ?
As opposed to a commodity, as proposed here >>7363 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.

 No.7369

>>7368
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.

 No.7370

>>7369
>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.

 No.7371

File: 1608526161254.jpeg (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.

 No.7372

>>7371
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:
&lta way to help the poor communities get money (by helping them sell their surplus produce)
&lta way of organizing the workers along socialist lines (collectively managing production)
&lta 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.

 No.7373

>>7372
nice one anon, the other anon has poop for brains

 No.7374

>>7372
>>7373
saddest samefage

 No.7375

>>7372
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.

 No.7376

>>7375
>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 >>7372 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.

 No.7377

>>7376
>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?

 No.7378

>>7375
>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.

 No.7379

>>7378
>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

 No.7380

>>7379
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

 No.7381

>>7372
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.

 No.7382

>>7136
All these vegetables and so little talk about the other half of ecosystems; animals

 No.7383

>>7382
having pet ducks and chickens is probably the best part about permaculture

 No.7384

>>7376
>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.

 No.7385

>>7384
>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.

 No.7386

>>7381
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.

 No.7387

>>7378
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.

>>7385
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.

 No.7388

>>7382
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.

>>7377
>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.

>>7387
>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.

 No.7389

File: 1608526162877.png (26.03 KB, 431x627, angry-scientist.png)

>>7386
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.

 No.7390

>>7388
>source
&ltDecreased efficiency in terms of low yields and high labour input were challenges that bothSouth African and Zimbabwean participants faced. >>7232 pdf

 No.7391

>>7388
>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

 No.7392

>>7389
>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.

 No.7393

File: 1608526163292.png (26.03 KB, 431x627, angry-scientist.png)

>>7392
>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.

&ltneither 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.

 No.7394

>>7387
>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.

 No.7395

>>7390
permaculture in developing nations =/= permaculture in imperialist nations

 No.7396

>>7390
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

 No.7397

I live in a hot desert. What can i realistically grow here for food?

 No.7398

>>7397
I think first you need a very big pile of rocks to catch moisture at night

 No.7399

>>7397
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.

 No.7400

I kinda want more information about this place

 No.7401


 No.7402

This thread in a nutshell
>Natural plants are good

 No.7403

>>7397
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/

 No.7404

>>7393
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.

&ltNo, 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.

 No.7405


 No.7406

>>7402
>N-no! you can't grow enough food ecologically and efficiently!
&ltHaha Plants grow fast

 No.7407

>>7136
this thread deserves to survive. Bump for effort thread

 No.7408

https://store.experimentalfarmnetwork.org/
This is a really nice place to get a variety of seeds.

 No.7409

Some animal came and shit in my food garden. At first I was annoyed but then I realized it's just fertilizer.

 No.7410

File: 1608526164835.jpg (33.89 KB, 498x383, squirrelpitt.jpg)

>>7409
>Iplant lettuce
&ltrabbit eats my lettuce
>I eat the rabbit
It's the circle of life…

 No.7411

>>7410
>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

 No.7412

>>7411
based ecologist

 No.7413

File: 1608526165125.png (201.19 KB, 549x455, retarded laughter.png)

>>7410
>It's the circle of life
&ltinstantly hear Lion King theme

 No.7414

>>7413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLFvthzy294
>Circle Of Life- The Lion King (lyrics)

 No.7415

>>7413
Why did you post this? Now the furries will come out of their containment thread!

 No.7416


 No.7417


 No.7418

File: 1608526165645-0.jpg (137.75 KB, 540x496, 3sisters.jpg)

File: 1608526165645-1.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.

 No.7419


 No.7420

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ryiTNYneQ
>What Happens When You Use Ash in the Garden?

 No.7421

>>7420
We add ash to the compost all the time

 No.7422

>>7150
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.

>>7146
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.

 No.7423

>>7146
>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.
>>7147
>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.

 No.7424

Anyone have the permaculture Pdf/links to the site the book comes from.? Trying to get started here

 No.7425


 No.7426

>>7425
I ain't clicking that shit nigga
Upload them here comrade

 No.7427

>>7426
motherfucker it's libgen links.
My upload speed is absolute dogshit

 No.7428


 No.7429


 No.7430

File: 1608526166997.jpeg (38.88 KB, 478x478, lenin and shrooms.jpeg)

>>7425
>>7427
>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 ?

 No.7431

>>7430
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.

 No.7432

Ok so how do you stop permaculture becoming illegalized and stamped out by the capitalist state?

 No.7433

>>7432
>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

 No.7434


 No.7435

File: 1608526167459.jpg (89.42 KB, 474x631, lenin mushroom.jpg)

>>7430
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.

 No.7436

>>7432
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.)

 No.7437

>>7434
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

 No.7438

File: 1608526167731.jpg (83.88 KB, 960x720, wild mustard.jpg)


 No.7439

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.

 No.7440

File: 1608526167951.jpeg (11.95 KB, 284x178, soil.jpeg)


 No.7441

>>7438
Does that mean we should return to wild mustard in a Permaculture setup & harvest the entire plant?

 No.7442

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.

 No.7443

>>7397
What about Date Palms? Those take years to bear fruit though..

 No.7444

>>7441
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.

 No.7445

>>7442
Seems like a good idea if you have nearby flowing water. Can't say for sure as I know little about engineering

 No.7446

File: 1608526168444.jpeg (12.29 KB, 228x183, 34twfa.jpeg)

>>7442
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 ?

 No.7447

>>7441
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.

>>7442
>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.
>>7446
>can we use the nuclear powered mushrooms for something ?
Getting rid of waste maybe.

>>7443
The best time to plant a tree is 7 years ago. The second best time is today.

 No.7448

>>7442
>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.

 No.7449

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

 No.7450

>>7449
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.

 No.7451

>>7450
>>516894
fucking webp

 No.7452

File: 1608526169023-0.jpg (3.82 MB, 4032x1960, 20200521_164058.jpg)

File: 1608526169023-1.jpg (4.44 MB, 4032x1960, 20200521_164110.jpg)

What's wrong with my tomatoes? Is it bacterial canker? It's on the zucchinis too

 No.7453

>>7452
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?

 No.7454

>>7452
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

 No.7455

>>7454
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

 No.7456

>>7455
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.

 No.7457

>>7455
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…

 No.7458

>>7457
Southeast US. Nice long season, but lots of things cant handle the heat of the summer

 No.7459

>>7456
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

 No.7460

File: 1608526169947.jpg (118.64 KB, 1280x720, fuckthesethings.jpg)

>>7450
>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.

 No.7461

>>7460
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

 No.7462

>>7461
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.

 No.7463

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

 No.7464

>>7463
Spare produce: donate/trade
Spare plant matter: mulch/compost

 No.7465

>>7463
If you cant find people who want your peppers you could always dry/smoke them and grind them up into a nice seasoning

 No.7466

File: 1608526170461.jpg (344.01 KB, 1500x1159, gardening.jpg)

>>7461
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.

 No.7467

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.

 No.7468

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.

 No.7469

>>7468
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.

 No.7470

>>7467
>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

 No.7471

>>7470
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.

 No.7472

>>7441
Not really, its more of an example of a plant that allows for a large variety of evolutionary paths

 No.7473

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.

 No.7474

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.

 No.7475

>>7461
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.

 No.7476


 No.7477

>>7476
based

 No.7478

bump

 No.7479


 No.7480


 No.7481


 No.7482

>>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?

 No.7483

>>7482
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.

 No.7484

>>7483
I mean, agriculture is not something you can just improvise especially in a city.

 No.7485

>>7484
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.

 No.7486

>>7485
>>7484
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.

>>7482
>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.

 No.7487

>>7486
I wasn't referring specifically to them, but to the fact that you can't become a farmer overnight.

 No.7488


 No.7489

>>7486
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.

 No.7490

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJ1-nQeZ68
>Growing and using wheat at home

 No.7491

>>7484
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

 No.7492

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?

 No.7493

>>7491
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.

>>7492
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.

 No.7494

>>7493
>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.

 No.7495

>>7494
For a few plants on a balcony I would probably just go through and squish the aphids with my fingers

 No.7496

>>7495
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.

 No.7497

>>7496
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.

 No.7498

>>7497
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.

 No.7499

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)

 No.7500

>>7499
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.

 No.7501

Can someone explain to me how permaculture can be used to grow crops like wheat, barley, canola, etc?

 No.7502

>>7501
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

 No.7503

>>7501
Imagine a world where canola just died.

 No.7504

>>7338
Based, thank you

 No.7505

>>7430
>falling for capitalist spore schemes
retard

 No.7506

>>7342
>>7343
This guy is living my dream lifestyle

 No.7507

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?

 No.7508

>>7502
> 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?

 No.7509

>>7508
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.

 No.7510

>>653224
With permaculture you usually spend a while observing the location to plan where to put things.

 No.7511

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?

 No.7512

>>7511
It's never to late to stop digging. If you inoculate the soil with some fungi it will help rebuild it some.

 No.7513

>>7508
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.

 No.7514

>>7511
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

 No.7515

>>7138
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.

 No.7516

>>7515
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

 No.7517

>>7515
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 >>7516 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.

 No.7518

>>7516
>>7517
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'?

 No.7519

>>7518
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'.

 No.7520

Farmer; the thread

 No.7521

>>7518
>>7519
>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.

 No.7522

>>7519
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

 No.7523

>>7522
>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.

 No.7524


 No.7525

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.

 No.7526

>>7525
>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

 No.7527

>>7526
>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.

 No.7528

>>7527
>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.

 No.7529

>>7528
>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.

 No.7530

>>7525
That's all well and good but why did you post your vore porn ITT?

 No.7531

>>7530
Why did you recognize it?
it's cropped and isn't actually vore m8

 No.7532

>>7527
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?

 No.7533

>>7531
Lmao I don't recognise it, it's just obvious from the image

 No.7534

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.

 No.7535

>>7534
What do you propose instead of environmentalism then? Just everyone shit up the place as much as possible til we all die?

 No.7536

>>7533
it's actually a foot fetish pic
>of a plant?
yeah

 No.7537

>>7535
That, or countries voluntarily giving up their sovereignty (unlikely to happen)

 No.7538

>>7536
now I kinda wanna see it

>>7537
Cool, guess we may as well not even try to save the human race then.

 No.7539

>>7532
>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?

 No.7540

>>7529
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

 No.7546

File: 1608526177570.jpg (190.33 KB, 1280x960, predatory planthro.jpg)

>>7536
>>7538
Here sauce is ZP92

 No.7613

>>7546
Lol, I'm kinda disappoint, I was expecting like leafy plant/root feet

Still respect from one cropped-porn poster to another

 No.7647

Why is this thread in hobby now?

 No.7648

>>7647
See >>7525
>>7527
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.

 No.7937


 No.7951

>>7613
GIVE SOME FUCKING SAUCE

 No.7952

>>7951
REPOST REQUEST AND IMAGE IN FURRY THREAD!

 No.9147

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.

 No.9148

>>9147
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

 No.9215

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.

 No.9391

How do I best turn a piece of regular lawn into a space usable for gardening while still maintaining the soil composition and such?

 No.9444

>>9391
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

 No.9453

>>9444
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

 No.9462

>>9453
There's debate over best practices but generally it's best not to disrupt the soil more than necessary.

 No.10227

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

 No.10378

>>7221
>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.

 No.10588

File: 1608526584827.jpg (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

 No.10850

https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ is a useful service that you guys might want to use or take part in (sell extra veggies or something).

 No.12730

>>10378
>the earth can sustain many times our current population.
show proof

 No.12731

File: 1608526861783.jpg (16.47 KB, 300x300, DxD Breast Chimera.jpg)

>>7525
>>7613
>>7546
Got made into a banner candidate lol
>>>/gulag/7919

 No.12732

>>12730
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.

 No.12733

>>12732
lol that article doesn't support what you're saying at all, maybe you should actually read it

 No.12737

File: 1608526862832-0.jpg (111.98 KB, 744x559, dig.jpg)

File: 1608526862832-1.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/

 No.12738

>>12733
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 >>7314
>>7316
https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2019/1/6/how-hydroponics-can-help-feed-the-world-while-saving-water

 No.12739

>>12738
>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

 No.12740

>>12739
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.

 No.12751

“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

 No.12966

File: 1608526897304.jpg (3.25 MB, 2363x2331, 20170920_071522.jpg)

Wrote an article on one of the Soviet Environmental projects and upon mentioning Permaculture I realized the article has not yet been created. Hope you guys can get started making one.
(click create page)
https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

 No.12971

Anybody else see the documentary Kiss the Ground? It's about how conventional farming destroys soil and although permaculture doesn't get mentioned, it does talk about related things like agroforestry and no-till.

It's got some hokey liberal shit in it at times but IMO it does a pretty good job explaining important concepts to normies who have zero scientific literacy.

 No.12974

>>19342
>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
Having read Darwin myself, I'm calling shenanigans on this claim. I invite you to support it with evidence.

 No.12978

>>12971
Sounds pretty based, though I argue that tilling/plowing can be useful as long as you take that into account and make adjustments to prevent topsoil loss.

>>12974
What I mean by it being true to an extent, is that the idea of environmental pressures and things like carrying capacity can be taken to mean that said carrying capacity cannot be raised by conscious human efforts or that culling is inevitable and necessary. It's less Darwin being Malthusian, and more how it can be interpreted that way.

 No.12983

File: 1608526899015.jpg (77.94 KB, 403x600, 128009_600.jpg)

>>19342
Some more
Read: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/lysenko.html
Also: https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html (was deleted), so use this link https://web.archive.org/web/20190111001548/https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html

A short summary: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/ly-tl-cv.html

>IN SHORT: The Three Main Bones of Contention regarding the things TD Lysenko REALLY said (these are given in greater detail elsewhere):


>One technical point: back when Lysenko talked about (what we NOW call) cytoplasm - he literally did not use that word and neither did the geneticists. The word they used to refer to ANYTHING that was not the nucleus of the cell was "living protoplasm." They could see little granules fleeting by in the microscope, or corpuscles floating by. They used THESE words. Of course, when I read this, I realize they are all talking about the cytoplasm; so some of those granules Lysenko mentioned DID INDEED carry important factors involved in heredity. Geneticists did claim it was all in the nucleus, not outside the nucleus at all. Also, it was chemists that discovered nucleic acids, NOT the geneticists. Geneticists talked of factors or elements of heredity: genes. Mitochondria also has genes, but they are not human genes, they are bacterial DNA!, yet they drive ALL OUR metabolism. These mitochondria are NOT in the nucleus of the cell! This is a technicality over which some might quibble.


>1. Geneticists insisted that heredity was carried forth exclusively by what is inside the nucleus of a cell (chromosomes) and that the rest of what is in the cytoplasm of the cell was just junk. This was called the "Chromosome Theory of Heredity." Lysenko did deny the THEORY, but he never denied the importance of chromosomes. DNA was not known of in the 1930's. Lysenko did NOT dispute that heredity was carried forth by chromosomes, but he insisted that the WHOLE of the cell, CYTOPLASM and all, was involved in the heredity process. Lysenko did NOT reject the importance of CHROMOSOMES, he even counted doubling of chromosomes in plants (as did geneticists). What he objected to was the dogma that "heredity was SOLELY contained in the chromosome." He turned out to be right: a lot of factors of heredity are in the cytoplasm of cells, not located in the nucleus! Geneticists claimed it was ALL contained in the chromosomes which are IN the nucleus. Lysenko disagreed, he was right. Ergo, the geneticists were excessively dogmatic in insisting they were right and declaring this that and the other. The discovery of DNA doesn't change this: Mitochondrial DNA, having the DNA of a bacterium, is in the CYTOPLASM of cells, not in nucleus. Without that, the rest wouldn't even work! For Mitochondria and how the discovery of how this evolved and works, see Lynn Margulis's works.


>2. Geneticists insisted on pure bred lines and claimed these were the best. Lysenko insisted on occasionally mixing the pure lines with wild varieties or else the pure lines would degenerate. Lysenko was 100% right about this. The head geneticist, Vavilov, admitted he was right, but the real battle over this carried on outside of plant breeding, in the realm of racist politics. Prior to this claim, backed by actions with plants, the geneticists had not yet reached the phase where they went "nuts" over what Lysenko said. This claim made them go nuts.


>3. Geneticists insisted that there is strict competition in the survival of the fittest, between species and within one species. Lysenko disagreed with this whole idea of "within one species" (intraspecific) competition and showed that this idea justifies Western Imperialism and exploitation of others by a ruling class (the fittest in the game of survival). He turned out to be right with Margulis topping the cake: she's a Nobel Prize winner. It even turns out that there is far less competition between species than had been theorized before. This phase got the geneticists to claim Lysenko was anti-Darwin and the battle raged on anew.


>Lysenko NEVER said that variations occur, changes in heredity occur, due to "use" and "disuse" of various organs. He NEVER said that. He was not a Lamarckian, knew what Lamarckism was, explained it and explained why it was wrong! He said changes were due to assimilation and dissimilation and focused on the metabolism and natural selection. Today, "assimilation" is known about and called GENETIC assimilation. Yet one doesn't have to know what a gene is to understand the assimilation. This last thing is part of the dung-heap of nonsense put into Lysenko's mouth by his enemies. They un-explain what he said, they MAKE IT into something stupid and then call it Lamarckian.


>The rest of the nonsense they claim Lysenko said is either pure lies or they take puns and jokes he made and pretend he was serious. Another dung-heap of slanders they throw at Lysenko have to do with the NKVD.


>What Lysenko was actually saying is very complex. What the geneticists wanted was something very simple-minded and Mendelian. Well, things are not simple and MOST things do not abide by the Mendelian 3:1 at all. What Lysenko discovered about vernalization was not known before and has turned out to be VERY important, it was not simple at all. Cold slows growth of a plant, but it makes the plant vernalize which then sets off a new DEVELOPMENT in the plant; ergo vernalization can't be growth: it's development which is something different. He used a very high reasoning on this. His phasic theory of development was also very heavy, not simple at all. Those who mock it out or try to ridicule him did NOT understand it at all, they are simple-minded and stupid. And they are liars that have only the desire to ridicule this man BECAUSE he was strongly Marxist and Stalinist.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Mechanisms_resembling_Lamarckism

 No.12989

>>12978
>make adjustments to prevent topsoil loss
How would one do that? I planted some stuff in a small plot of land this summer and in preparing the soil for seeds and stuff, I dug up all the grass, which I assume is damaging to the soil composition. How can I reestablish the balance of the soil?

 No.12990

>>12978
Historical note
When Darin read his copy of Das Kapital he got to the MCM CMC section noted in his diary that if poverty is due to human error not nature then great are our sins and wrote a letter to Marx thanking him for his contributions to science

 No.12991

>>12978
>tilling/plowing can be useful
Based on what? You can direct sow basically anything afaik, and there are machines that do that at the same scale as conventional ploughs (they showed one in the documentary).

>>12989
>How can I reestablish the balance of the soil?
Build more soil. Let organic matter fall there and decompose. Trees make their own soil with fallen leaves for example. If you leave them to their own device they will smother the grass under them and kill it. For future reference that's how to kill your grass best. Smother it with newspaper or something. You just have to do it thick enough so nothing can grow through the cracks/holes. Then cover it with soil/compost/mulch. Best to do this in the fall/winter so the grass dies off and you have regular ground for spring.

 No.12993

>>12989
I know a bean farmer from Haiti, skilled man. THe way he did it was to clear a plot of land, plow it and plant the beans. He removed all bushes and trees inside, but kept a thick set of trees and bushes around it, trapping soil and moisture and helping negte winds. He topped it off by having the beas grow close together and having their roots hold the soil together, only pulling them out when planting new ones after Winter.

Also crop rotation is important; using 4 fields (or dividing them in-4) wheat in the first field, turnips in the second, barley in the third and clover in the fourth. Then rotate clockwise so that what grows in field/section 4 and clover grows in section 1 etc. The clover returns nutrients to the soil and turnips help brek it up for wheat and barley (or whatever you want to plant).

>>12991
Based on centuries of people doing this successfully?
>You can direct sow basically anything
It's harder and less efficient unless you're directly planting already grown plants.
>machines that do that
they also till the soil somewhat as well m8, this isn't grass.

 No.12994

>>12990
*Darwin

 No.13002

>>12993
>Based on centuries of people doing this successfully?
Kind of like saying that people have been doing medicine successfully for centuries tbh. History is full of terrible famines.
>It's harder and less efficient unless you're directly planting already grown plants.
It's not though? Tilling requires much more energy because you're turning over so much soil to do it.
>they also till the soil somewhat as well m8, this isn't grass.
Putting something in the ground is going to disrupt the soil to some degree, but it's minimally disruptive to inject seeds, especially in comparison to traditaional practices of turning over the soil and broadcasting.

 No.13004

>>12994
>>12990
Sauce on Darwin's letter?

>>13002
>Kind of like saying that people have been doing medicine successfully for centuries
If it works then it works.
>famines
Mostly because of misuse and abuse of land over-reaching as well as exploitation and natural factors.
>Tilling requires much more energy because you're turning over so much soil to do it
which is why plows have changed, to have a share, Moldboard, Colter and other improvements.
>it's minimally disruptive to inject seeds
seeds don't really care about disruption though, the point is to trap soil and prevent it from being torn away by wind and water run-off, something which modern mass farmers don't do.

 No.13005

>>13004
>If it works then it works.
The point is it doesn't. It's not good enough and it degrades the land.
>the point is to trap soil and prevent it from being torn away by wind and water run-off
WRONG. Soil is not a substance, like water. It's an ecosystem with structure and the more you disrupt that structure the more you destabilize it. You don't have to worry about runoff if the soil is stable to begin with.

 No.13006


 No.13009

>>13006
Thanks m8

>>13005
>It's not good enough and it degrades the land
Like I said, depends on your method. If you just till the land and nothing else, no shit it'll fuck things up, which is why you make sure to not leave it to be dispersed
> Soil is not a substance, like water. It's an ecosystem with structure and the more you disrupt that structure the more you destabilize it.
Soil is dug up and churned by nature all the time, it also gets washed away all the time, the reason meadows don't wash away near streams is because the grass is tightly holding the soil and the meadows tend to have trees retaining moisture and keeping out Dry Winds

 No.13260

>>12983
Very interesting, thank you anon.

 No.13926

File: 1611788595507.jpg (11.88 KB, 332x443, classic.jpg)

>>12737
>most of the garden hoses have lead in them or other toxic chemicals that leach into the water
How big of a thing is this actually??

 No.17080


 No.19357

>>13926
>How big of a thing is this actually
Pretty common, even today, lead is really malleable, so its makes for a good material to use.

 No.23572

File: 1647971542150-0.png (475.27 KB, 1684x389, 16.png)

File: 1647971542150-1.png (461.98 KB, 1690x458, 17.png)


 No.23573

>>23572
Thanks Shay, based post

 No.23574

>>23572
Given the profound changes that are coming with ecological collapse, massive irrigation projects may become necessary. How viable it is is a bit of an open question, but the fact that we have already seen it done gives me hope. It's also the case that more forest will help retain water and fight heating of the land, so irrigation and fresh water should be combined with reforestation and creating a durable ecosystem that can help keep the artificial reservoirs stable.

 No.23575


 No.23579

every suburban homeowner where i live is starting to get obsessed with this “naturescaping” bs
also permaculture sounds like returning to a feudal, domestic patriarchal mode of production

 No.23580

>>23579
>ermaculture sounds like returning to a feudal, domestic patriarchal mode of production
Yeah, no read the thread effort posts and the pdf books on it.
>every suburban homeowner where i live is starting to get obsessed with this “naturescaping” bs
It's not BS, even if they're fucking around it's at least a step to having a small self-sustaining producer of foods. In the USSR a lot of people had these at their dachas, making pickles and pickled tomatoes and fruit jams and more using their little gardens to supplement groceries in the stores.

 No.24840

File: 1652066353594-0.mp4 (8.34 MB, 406x720, 378230644.mp4)

File: 1652066353594-1.png (540.38 KB, 935x339, ClipboardImage.png)

>American permaculture

 No.25537

It's June, comrades, I hope you've planted your gardens?
So far I've got tomatoes, peppers, onions and garlic in raised beds and the fruit trees and berries have flowered.
Im annoyed with how the trees turned out. They are dwarf trees that I didn't prune so now they're like 10 feet tall. They are still young so Im debating cutting them to down to a few feet off the ground and starting over? Only 3 out of the 4 trees are even native so I might just tear them out tbh, or do you think that matters?
My objective this summer is to get more native wildflowers for our pollinating friends

 No.25538

>>25537
Plant garlic time for southern hemisphere

 No.25539

>>25538
Plant garlic now in southern hemisphere?

 No.25540

File: 1654181091143.mp4 (280.72 KB, 640x360, horrible y fascinante.mp4)


 No.25541


 No.25571

>>23579
it wont ever be a mode of production (again), just a pastime and a way to get healthful veggies and fruits to everyone at best. But gardens are cool and fun.

 No.25572


 No.25579

>>25572
They are pear trees and a few years old, still young but probably older than anything in that video. That said, you spurred me on to do some reading and I think Im going to be fine . pear trees like a central structure apparently so I guess I can just shave a few feet off the top and focus on thinning out the branches and trying to get them to go more horizontal rather then the straight up and down it wants to do now
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
>>25571
>gardens are cool and fun.
Many people are saying it

 No.25877

I know this doesn't strictly relate to the topic of the thread, but from a general sustainability standpoint could something like this along with sustainable farming be the beginning of the transition towards completely self-sustaining communes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Ecology

 No.25883

>>25877
I like it :)
Add in Open Source Lab and other texts and it could be parcelled together as a package to just give people to help them start (or re-start).

 No.25887

>>25877
this is a good project and it should be supported for what it is, the beginning of opensource industrial machines that are accessible to all. The gnu/tractor.

I really like the idea that they have interchangeable power-generator blocks, although they will have to switch from hydraulics to electricity (or a combination of both) if they really want to follow through with the modularity.

Their self sufficiency advertisement is a little deceptive, they are not creating a self sufficient tech Eco-system, it is not possible to mine iron ore and turn it into a carbon-steal beam at a small scale. The reason that people are working so much is because capitalists steal the surplus, it is not technological sophistication that is causing this. There is merit in having simple machines that everybody can run and maintain, but that has more to do with social goals of making the people's-tech. They do have a point that there is a maximum of industrial capital that a given population can support, but it is not as simple as they are making it out. Capitalist corporations are intentionally making technology that breaks and cause unnecessary maintenance/replacement work because they are following a rent seeking business model. That is not an inherent property of technology. To be fair, even capitalism used to be better than this.

 No.25890

>>25877
It's a misconception that permaculture is strictly about agriculture. The concept is to intelligently design human habitats. Locally integrated food production is just the most obvious element of that. Integrating production generally into the human habitat is closer to a real distillation of the point. This kind of thing would be very well in line with building permaculture settlements. Particularly the part where they are talking about growing their own hydraulic fluid locally from canola oil.

Even if it wasn't directly compatible with permaculture it's still very good. This kind of innovation - making important machining technology more widely available at a small scale - is probably the beginning of a paradigm shift that is going to become critical the more capitalism deteriorates. The point about the manufacturing base being too big is key, and is again very much in line with the design principles of permaculture, reducing dependence on large supply chains and allowing sustainable production to happen at the local level.

 No.25891

>>25887
You make fair criticisms but the video is only 6 minutes long, so not much time to get into the larger economic factors (and even if they were radicals talking in those terms might run counter to their goals of advertising the project to the intended audience). Still, the best solution is probably recognizing both the factors they mention and the ones you do, so that we can integrate these kinds of systems into the larger production chain and undermine monopoly capitalism and ultimately surpass capitalism entirely. The question really should not be whether centralization is good or bad, but for what purposes is it useful or detrimental, and how to optimize the level of centralization according to what fits the production needs best.

 No.25893

File: 1655058780339.jpeg (133.09 KB, 940x751, draebersnegle.jpeg)

How the fuck do I get these cocksuckers to stay away from my plants?

 No.25894

>>25893
Here's a pretty long list of possibilities.
https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/20-ways-control-slugs-permaculture-garden-or-allotment

Generally you want to avoid pesticides as much as possible, and for slugs it's probably not necessary. Figure out what species of slug it is if you can, and probably the simplest options are to bring in or attract something that eats or kills them and/or plant some decoy plant that they would prefer to eat over your crops.

 No.25896

>>25893
Are you allowed to keep any animals? I've heard ducks love slugs. Emphasis on "are you allowed" because it's against the law in my area, amazingly
I just want some chickens bros

 No.25913

>>25896
>I just want some chickens bros
We'll get them soon

 No.25914

File: 1655100251867.mp4 (1.53 MB, 684x854, RzsbmC4.mp4)

>>25893
get a few ducks or ask around and see if anyone has some you can let loose in your garden for a few days

 No.25925


 No.26044

Too lazy to replace the woodchips in my raised beds now that they've disintegrated, but letting it all go to weeds and doing chop and drop seems to work just as well. I just make sure to cut the weeds back before it shades anything out.
Dumb idea or what? It's effortless at least

 No.26046

File: 1655486724535.jpeg (61.8 KB, 1200x630, free real estate.jpeg)

>>26044
Mulching is good and can be necessary to get some initial biomass, but yes chop and drop should be fine. You are returning the nutrients from those plants back to the soil. Some carbon is lost to decomposition, but it's less than what was absorbed from the air to make the plant grow. Allowing weeds to grow for a bit and then turning them into mulch is sill using mulch, it's just free now.

You should try to identify the species and do a little research on them, though, because some "weeds" are actually beneficial. One major example of this is dandelions, which fix calcium in the soil (rare quality) and have pretty deep roots that help with aeration and water absorption.

 No.26047

>>26046
Based knowledge haver.

 No.26058

>>26046
niceu

 No.26518

File: 1656970386387.png (15.15 KB, 342x211, ClipboardImage.png)

Assuming permaculture can't replace mechanized agriculture in terms of output and efficiency, what can be done to the latter to make it more environmentally friendly? I assume there's tons of stuff porky and kulaks won't do because muh profits
Like why not do three sister planting on an industrial scale and mulch the fields with the hay you have lying around while you're at it.
You could make a fancy tractor that plants the seeds, lays the hay/mulch and an organic pipe for drip irrigation all at the same time

 No.26519

>>26518
>Assuming permaculture can't replace mechanized agriculture in terms of output and efficiency,
Whether this is even true is a complicated question. We already have machines that can pick fruits and such. Designing a permaculture site with mechanized planting/harvesting in mind is possible, especially with more recent advances in robotics and AI. Hell, AI may actually be very useful for planning a permaculture site since it might process the inputs faster than a human designer could in order to optimize things like placement and irrigation.
>what can be done to [mechanized agriculture] to make it more environmentally friendly?
A lot actually. Here's just a few.
<replace monocultures with polycultures
This isn't automatically permaculture, but growing multiple things in the same general area can be a lot more useful. For example, having plants to attract native pollinators can be more effective than current pollination methods that require trucks full of bees to be brought in to pollinate fields. You can also attract wildlife that will assist production, for example growing food for grazing animals who will shit fertilizer everywhere during the off seasons to help build up the soil for the next harvest.
<replace tilling with non-till sowing
Tilling (running a plough through the soil to break it up for planting) breaks up the soil's structure (mycelium, roots, etc) and contributes massively to soil degradation. There are already machines available that can sow seed at an industrial scale without tilling, by directly inserting the seeds into the ground instead. This also has the potential benefit of more efficiently using the seeds, compared to methods where you till ruts and broadcast seeds over them.
<replace synthetic fertilizers and pesticides with non-damaging alternatives
One of the most effective ways to fight pests is to introduce a predator species, such as ladybugs to eat aphids. This is an all-around superior choice because it reduces the health and environmental impact of farming, while also increasing the biomass (predators convert the pests into poop i.e. fertilizer). The more locally pest control and fertilizer production happens, the less dependent on the larger supply chain it is and the less energy the process uses. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers also have issues with runoff and affecting local riverine/marine wildlife. Fertilizers in particular are often poorly absorbed by the crops because they are highly concentrated, as opposed to the droppings of animals which are packaged in a significant quantity of other organic matter that helps to hold the nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen.

 No.26520

>>26519
That bit about no-till on an industrial scale is interesting. Reading into it, the catch is that using it conventionally requires even more pesticides than usual to account for the lack of weed control that the plowing provides, but as you mention in the next paragraph, there are organic methods of weeding so this seems like a no-brainer.
>Assuming permaculture can't replace mechanized agriculture in terms of output and efficiency
>>Whether this is even true is a complicated question. We already have machines that can pick fruits and such
But even if we had fully mechanized permaculture, does it compare to the output of mechanized agriculture? Putting aside that the latter is awful for the environment, of course.
It would be a shame if, in order to maintain or grow current population levels while switching to permaculture, even more land had to be devoted to food production

 No.26521

File: 1656978990277.jpeg (36.2 KB, 495x619, 1646089753792.jpeg)

>>26520
Well it's important to consider that contemporary agriculture being efficient is largely propaganda. There is an immense amount of waste, both in the sense of how much produce is lost or discarded and in the sense of how much of a resource hog it all is. When people think about how labor intensive an industry is, they normally are thinking in terms of how labor intensive the direct production of that resource is (relative to the inputs of capital) but often ignore that the capital being used (tractors etc) were also produced by labor. Mechanized monoculture production appears much more efficient than it actually is because most of the labor that goes into it is done in secondary support industries. In order to "reform" the system to be more efficient, that would be the most important place to look, to reduce the need to consume specialized products (that require a whole industry to make plus shipping, logistics, and marketing to distribute) rather than more direct, local solutions. The problem with agriculture and anything else under capitalism is that the drive is toward making more products to sell, increasing the exchange value purely so you can drive up prices. If you start looking into how these systems function at the macro level it quickly becomes obvious that they are actually extremely wasteful in any sense other than for maximizing profit.

 No.26522

>>26520
>It would be a shame if, in order to maintain or grow current population levels while switching to permaculture, even more land had to be devoted to food production
But consider the other environmental impacts. With permaculture you can devote land to agriculture, without disturbing local wildlife even. Pesticide agriculture is killing bees en mass and destroying habitats for birds and other local wildlife, it could potentially give them more habitat. Symbiotic relationships between humans and nature are possible.

 No.26523

>>26522
This.
Reminder that a lot of the Amazon rainforest was silviculture managed by indigenous people for food before they got got by disease and genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest#Human_activity
Also reminder that the bees used for pollination and honey are an invasive species displacing native pollinator bees who sustain native plants in ways that invasive bees do not.

 No.26560

>>26521
modern container ships are incredibly cost efficient you'd be surprised. could be some packers in thailand were short on pears and some pears in argentina where short on packers. maybe they don't have packers because they only need them seasonally and they're expensive facilities to build and maintain so it makes more sense to ship them over somewhere where they invested to pack fruit from all over year round. maybe there is a valid and efficient reason for this.

 No.26572

>>26560
>cost efficient
porky brain

 No.26574

>>26560
You may not be able to grow pears everywhere (but you definitely can grow them in the US), but you can manufacture plastic cups anywhere. The only reason that stuff like this happens (products crossing oceans on gas-guzzling container ships between steps of production) is due to businesses seeking lowest labor costs and laxest regulations. I live in roughly the area where the product in that diagram ends up (eastern US) and there are people around here with pear trees on there property that produce a bunch of pears every year. I've literally seen pear trees in people's yards around here with pears littering the ground because they produce more than the owner will use. It's not a lot of effort to cut up pears and put them into a syrup to make basically the same product, and it's easier if you do a bunch at once (which can also extend the shelf life of the harvest). The only reason to favor what's happening in the pic over local production is if you think that harvesting fruits (even casually picking them from a tree in your yard) is too much manual labor for a westerner.

 No.26586

If you're ever feeling down, go to youtube and watch videos about repairing degraded landscapes with permaculture.

 No.26588

>>26586
That whole channel is full of educational content.

Beavers are extremely important. The fur trade during early colonization absolutely wrecked their population and probably drove thousands of unique species extinct that depended on beaver ponds.

 No.26853

File: 1657689054724-0.png (340.39 KB, 788x555, ClipboardImage.png)

Working my way through this book and found this
>Penny’s graywater system is a set of four shimmering ponds, complete with water plants, fish, and ducks. Graywater from bath and laundry first flows through a small marsh that brims with bog plants and ornamental grasses. This artificial wetland, just a few feet across, removes most of the graywater’s contaminants and converts them into vegetation. The mostly clean water then trickles over rocks through three small ponds, where it is joined by rainwater from the roof of Penny’s backyard office, home of the Permaculture Institute of Northern California. The final destination is the duck pond, a deep ten-by- ten-foot affair that glimmers with golden koi and ripples with the splashes of mallards. The ducks serve as water-quality monitors. In the system’s early days, before the marsh was installed, the ducks wouldn’t swim in the not-clean-enough water. That was because the residual soap in the ponds washed the oil from their feathers resulting in sinking ducks. Now, the marsh-cleaned water suits them perfectly. Ducks bob happily in clean, treated graywater that has been purified by a backyard wetland
I just love this idea, should be a part of building codes

 No.26864

>>26586
It frustrates me because I do not own land

 No.27163

File: 1658346287057-0.jpg (6.27 MB, 4032x3024, 20220720_151820.jpg)

File: 1658346287057-1.jpg (3.85 MB, 4032x3024, 20220720_153206.jpg)

My favorite plant finally bloomed, I think because our summer has been so mild and wet that they were delayed. It's some kind of biennual thistle that the bugs go crazy for so I'm trying to propagate it around. The specimen in picrel with its single flower must be 8 feet tall

 No.27166

>>27163
Hey, I've got one of those in my garden too, I think. Although not nearly as tall. It also just started blooming.

 No.27169

>>27166
I believe they are from the Cirsium genus, here's a baby one, 2nd pic is a different species from the same genus that's has been blooming all summer. You should encourage them to spread because they are some of the best pollinators around. Unfortunately thistles are universally regarded as a "noxious weed"

 No.27170

File: 1658356211923-0.jpg (4.47 MB, 4032x3024, 20220720_181716.jpg)

File: 1658356211923-1.jpg (3.34 MB, 4032x3024, 20220720_181753.jpg)

>>27169
Forgot pics

 No.27327


 No.27337

>>7518
>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.

nah dude. you confuse automation for lack of labor. First of all, not every edible crop has its growing and picking automated. We still get strawberries picked by hand, for example. But even if growing, water, picking were automated you still have at least 5 layers of labor between farm and table. You have sorting, washing, packing, shipping, unpacking, displaying, between the farm and the table. The point of permaculture is to undo this entire process by decreasing the distance between farm and table. The real criticism of permaculture is not the criticisms you're making, but the fact that most people are not property owners and cannot do this even if they wanted to.

 No.27341

>>26864
Guerrilla garden

 No.27342

>>27337
>The real criticism of permaculture is not the criticisms you're making, but the fact that most people are not property owners and cannot do this even if they wanted to.
Sure, but we're not just looking at solutions in the present, but during transition and under communism. It's also been possible for communities to band together to collectively own property and convert land to productive use. And then there's adverse possession and guerilla gardening. So while the criticism is valid, it's a problem that's at least partly solvable.

 No.27423

>>27341
I don't know how to do that

 No.27483

Is this guy legit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Gotsch

It sounds too good

 No.27484

>>27483
From the article it sounds like he has proof in the form of agroforests.
>Process-based, not input-based: Rather than seeking to add nutrients from outside sources, syntropic agriculture mimics and accelerates natural succession processes to capture carbon, water, nutrients (via wildlife) and diversity in degraded and undeveloped land.
>Heavy pruning: To add biomass to the soil, retain soil moisture, open up canopy, increase carbon capture and transpiration.
>'Water is planted (‘Água se planta!’)' By introducing plants that store water, and increase transpiration.
>'Turn our enemies into our friends.' Farmers should look for plants that are green all year (even in severe drought, especially weeds) and plant many of these. These should include tree such as eucalypts that if managed correctly can help protect and foster less robust species, and produce much organic matter quickly to cover and rebuild the soil.
All of this makes sense. Would be interesting to compare point 3 with this >>>/siberia/287079

 No.27485

>>27423
vidrel
More geared toward conservation than permaculture but there's a lot of overlap.

 No.27486

>>27484
>all makes sense
Well maybe except this bit definitely doesn't
>These should include tree such as eucalypts
WTF don't do this find some other kind of tree that doesn't depend on periodic natural firestorms as part of it's lifecycle

 No.27487

>>27485
He just shows off his own stuff. The only instruction he gives is to convince workers to dump mulch for you.

 No.27488

>>27486
Maybe thoses tree are cut when they reach a critical mass so they can fertilize the soil, or the method require controlled fire or some sort?

 No.27489

>>27486
IDK about eucalyptus but it seems like there are ways to cultivate it that don't require wildfires considering it gets cultivated a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Cultivation_and_uses

 No.27839

?

 No.27840

>>27839
While this would make more surface area of the planet available for agriculture, the added complexity of having to maintain a system like this makes it seem pretty dubious at a large scale. However, there might be niche applications if there are particular crops that grow very well in these kinds of conditions. Scale is the biggest issue with this by far, since if you try to have something bigger than the human-sized bubbles in the video you start to deal with very large forces from the water pressure on your dome, which also translates to higher air pressure in the bubble (which could be good or bad for the crops depending on the species or strain).

 No.27842

>"The source of wealth is the functional ecosystems. The products and services that we derive from those are derivatives. Its impossible for those derivatives to be more valuable than the source and yet in our economy now as it stands the products and services have monetary value, but the source, the functional ecosystems, are zero. This cannot be true, its false. We have created global economic institutions and theory based on a flaw in logic, so if we carry that flaw in logic to generation to generation we compound the mistake."

https://youtu.be/IDgDWbQtlKI?t=2315

 No.28061

>>27842
This guy, Geoff Lawton and Andrew Millison are great.

 No.28063

>>27839
Overengineered IMO. As the other anon said, unscalable.

 No.28065

>>28061
This guy is a reactionary, he complains that industrial agriculture has "very low employment"
If you think about it, he complains that labor productivity was improved through technology. He is opposed to one of the most fundamental prerequisites for progress: improving the means of production. When most people had to work in agriculture, the social system was feudalism and most people were serfs.

The entire premise that industrial food production can't be used to produce nutritious food in environmentally harmonious ways is wrong. Capitalism produces food for sale and it tries to externalize environmental costs, that's why the food in capitalism has low nutritional value and why there is so much environmental damage. What should have been a criticism of capitalism becomes a baseless slander of industrial technology.

It's a damn shame, by going against industrial technology, he basically neutralizes him self, as somebody wanting to turn back time. We should change food production so that all food is highly nutritious, and we should improve agricultural praxis so that it doesn't fuck up the environment, but we should also keep going forward in time and continue using industrial technology to improve labor productivity.

Also GMO technology doesn't have to be bad, the fact that capitalists are abusing this technology, doesn't mean the technology is inherently bad.

Are there no progressive people interested in this ? Like going into the direction of doing something like industrial permaculture with libre opensource GMO.

 No.28066

>>28065
>He is opposed to one of the most fundamental prerequisites for progress: improving the means of production. When most people had to work in agriculture, the social system was feudalism and most people were serfs.
There is more than one way to improve technology. There is more than one kind of "progress" and more than one way of improving productivity. Capitalism favors whatever shifts the balance toward capital intensive production the quickest, and will sacrifice other sorts of improvements to that end, because that's the kind of improvement that maximizes profits.

>Capitalism produces food for sale and it tries to externalize environmental costs, that's why the food in capitalism has low nutritional value and why there is so much environmental damage.

This is only one of the reasons. It's worth noting that the primary way that capitalism externalizes environmental costs is by ignoring that they even exist. Socialism doesn't automatically start recognizing these costs. There's more wrong with the current agricultural model than capitalism. Other modes of production devastated environments too. Even without capitalism a lot of our agricultural methods were causing deforestation, erosion, biodiversity collapse, etc. Capitalism made it even worse, but it's not the only problem or even the fundamental problem with the current agricultural methods, which are unsustainable under any economic system and have been causing slow desertification for all of history.

>It's a damn shame, by going against industrial technology, he basically neutralizes him self, as somebody wanting to turn back time.

Reality isn't a dial that you turn either forwards or backwards. There are other methods of agriculture besides tilling and planting monocultures that have been and are currently practiced in various parts of the world. They are less industrialized currently because they are less easy to industrialize, so agribusiness has favored the crops and farming methods that are more easily industrialized (because again their MO is to make the process more capital intensive at the expense of everything else). Adopting other methods and making them more automated is not "turning back time." It's recognizing that the method is harmful and should be replaced with something else, like was done when people realized making food cans and water pipes out of lead was a bad idea.

>Like going into the direction of doing something like industrial permaculture with libre opensource GMO.

The issue is that current technology is designed for a completely different method of production than what permaculture is. The kinds of machines in use on most farms are by and large incompaptible since they are designed for mass harvests of monocultures, while permaculture involves inter-planting various species that are harvested at different times. Lawton also points out in the video that a lot of the "efficiency" involved in industrial agriculture involves steps of production that are made mostly obsolete by permaculture. If you can grow the food closer to its destination and with fertilization, irrigation, and pest control integrated into the same system, then the functions of most of the industrial machinery has been fulfilled without the need to build machines. Just because something wasn't assembled in a factory doesn't mean it's not technology. If you can design agricultural land in a way that fulfills these functions (after the way nature works), you have automated the process, just by ingenious use of gardening rather than by creating machines that require their own special industrial production processes to build and maintain.

 No.28067

File: 1661049629847-2.jpg (55.36 KB, 378x567, E1.jpg)

>>28065

it depends there are really two types of permaculture the og type and the grifter pyramid scheme type that focuses on selling courses

in its original form it is completely compatible with communism but not explicit about it and i don't think many people have really thought it through to the end. they have a lot of great ideas but they would need to be adapted

that video kinda sucks cause its "just change the way people think" kinda pure idealism but he is very good in his specific field. i think he has a certain idea about "industrial agriculture" in mind that he is critiquing that means tilling, monocrops, and water soluble fertilizer and he is advocating for compost mulch and living soil. hes definitely not an anprim and advocates using industrial machinery to reshape landscapes for water retention

 No.28071

>>28066
No there is no rehabilitating that guy from the video, he unmistakably implied that improving labor productivity was bad. Using more labor to get shit done is turning back time.

I also take note that you also seem to be trying to shift criticism away from capitalism. That makes you a reactionary as well. Today we know about the problems in food production but the capitalists are refusing to fix it. That means they are the problem.

You also attacked socialism, by implying it wouldn't be structurally inclined to fix these problems, that is again making the case that you are a reactionary. A socialist economy that uses advanced cybernetic planning for it's economy, will be able to include nutritional value and ecological costs in it's economic decision making because socialist planning is not limited to a single economic unit of measurement like money. By changing the mode of production from capitalism to socialism we can include as many measurement variables into the economic system until all factors are taken into account. Socialist economics will not have economic externalities, and even complex relations like increasing nutrient density in the food to reduce health costs, will become easy to optimize in economic terms.

I don't care about the specifics of the techniques of production. If you replace a tractor for tilling, sowing and harvesting mono-crops with a different machine that is suited for automating most of the labor inputs needed for permaculture, that is nothing but technical questions to be decided by the people that produce food. Both of these methods are industrial agriculture.

The opposite of industrial agriculture is manual agriculture.

I don't believe you that we can have highly productive food production without mechanization. If traditional non industrial permaculture could indeed do away with the need for expensive machines, without loosing yields or increasing the need for labor, it would have taken over the planet already. I think that you are trying to cheat as far as labor-costs are concerned.

>>28067
>it depends there are really two types of permaculture the og type and the grifter pyramid scheme type that focuses on selling courses
thanks, good to know
>i think he has a certain idea about "industrial agriculture" hes definitely not an anprim and advocates using industrial machinery to reshape landscapes for water retention
Oh i see, he doesn't understand industrialization in general, and conflates it with specific instances. Yeah that's going to create a lot of confusion.

 No.28072

>>28071 🤡
>I also take note that you also seem to be trying to shift criticism away from capitalism. That makes you a reactionary as well. Today we know about the problems in food production but the capitalists are refusing to fix it. That means they are the problem.
You are literally just a contrarian.
>You also attacked socialism, by implying it wouldn't be structurally inclined to fix these problems
No, I said it doesn't automatically fix problems that predate capitalism and have existed across multiple modes of production.

>A socialist economy that uses advanced cybernetic planning for it's economy, will be able to include nutritional value and ecological costs in it's economic decision making because socialist planning is not limited to a single economic unit of measurement like money.

This is a wildly wrong and even dangerous take. Cybernetic planning can help to optimize at a marginal level, but economic planning algorithms are not going to invent or innovate the production methods in a qualitative way, only a quantitative one by optimizing inputs and outputs. There's still a need for intelligently evaluating and engineering things. Cybercommunism isn't a magic bullet. Don't be a technofetishist for fuck's sake.
>I don't care about the specifics of the techniques of production.
>that is nothing but technical questions to be decided by the people that produce food.
"Nothing but technical questions" describes the material conditions on which the economy depends.

>I don't believe you that we can have highly productive food production without mechanization.

Nobody said we should completely abandon mechanization. It's just not the only possible way to improve productivity.
>If traditional non industrial permaculture could indeed do away with the need for expensive machines, without loosing yields or increasing the need for labor, it would have taken over the planet already
This is like saying "If public transport by light rail could indeed do away with the need for expensive personal automobiles without losing transit efficiency or increasing the need for labor, it would have taken over the cities already." This isn't even remotely the way that capitalism works.

 No.28092


 No.28154

File: 1661466278669.png (1.16 MB, 1024x683, wewuzkangz.png)

>>26853
>What kinds of ecosystems do most yards contain? The answers tell us why yard work is so tedious and never ending. A lawn of grass edged with flowers is an ecological cousin to prairie. The other major plant arrangement found in suburbia, the archetypal turf dotted with occasional trees and shrubs, mimics a savanna. (I wonder at the ancient dreams we’re acting out when we create these landscapes, which mimic those of our species’ infancy on the plains of Africa.)
He probably said this half in jest but it blew my little mind. Now when I see white suburbanites waging their ceaseless struggle against their lawns I imagine they are just trying to reconnect with their roots.

 No.28201


 No.28324

Do swales on flat land do anything?

 No.28325

>>28324
How flat is the land? Almost any land has some kind of grade or drainage you could take advantage of. If it's too flat for water to drain then IDK how you'd use swales, but what would even be the point? Swales exist to slow drainage and increase absorption of water into the soil. If there's no drainage they wouldn't really help. You might have another issue with land like that - standing water. If that's an issue then probably the answer is to add more plants so the water gets soaked up rather than evaporating.

 No.28328

>>28325
Okay it snot actually that flat, according the the maps theres a 2 foot drop over 18 meters but ive dug a bunch of swales this summer and they never fill with water, but maybe that's a good thing? I basically only put them in to satisfy my childlike fascination with water management but I guess it wasnt meant to be.

While Im here Id like to ask if anyone knows of good permaculture authors who focus on cold climates if not Canada specifically. Im following a lot of local peepz but a proper book would be nice. Ive scoured the internet and the one that gets recommended the most is pdfrel but I still think it applies too much to places like the US and UK which sure, theyre temperate but they dont freeze over for half the year like Canada, Scandinavia Russia etc does. I know of Richard Perkins in Sweden but he's more of a farmer/rancher than a gardener

 No.28442

File: 1662159255004.png (446.42 KB, 574x394, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.28466

ordered 20 comfrey root cuttings off kijiji and I guess I was the only one that did so because the guys offloaded like 50 crowns onto me and I just spent 2 hours burying them all kek
also got some walking onions for the lulz

 No.28467

>>28442
imagine flushing your feces into the fucking ocean when you could reclaim its composting benefits

We should definitely put it through waste treatment first, though, because we have a lot of heavy metals in there that we don't want accumulating. Scientists even found that you can extract precious metals from feces in a way that makes you money lol.

>>28328
>but ive dug a bunch of swales this summer and they never fill with water
Might not be getting enough rain. The good news is they are probably preventing water runoff. However you might be seeing evaporation take a lot of water rather than the soil absorbing it. Depends on the conditions you have.
>cold climate / Canada material
IDK but be advised climate change will alter your conditions in the future. I have already seen my warmer area change its climate classification for what it can grow.

 No.28497

>>28466
niceu

 No.28591

Should we make a separate thread more geared towards gardening? Im shitting this one up with my blog posts
>>28467
Thanks for all of your informative responses friend.
We would definitely want to treat the water, and Im sure you know theres organic ways of doing so, vidrel.
Apparently even in a humble rainwater harvesting tank, the sludge that builds up in the lower levels is a huge heavy metal sink

 No.28592

>>28591 (forgot vid)

 No.28593

What advantage is having a large pond close to a house for energy and permaculture projects?

Would having access to a large body of water improve the advantage of a heat exchanger? Are there perma projects that become possible?

 No.28595

>>28593
IDK if this is what youre talking about, Im not the resident expert but Ive heard that water and even rocks, windbreaks etc help to create microclimates because of, among other things, the heat exchange, which can be pretty important in colder climates like where im at. Using these methods would allow you to grow things you normally couldnt in your hardiness zone.
Guy in vidrel is the one I heard this from.

 No.28612

>>28593
The advantage is a source of water. There are a lot of things you can do with that, not least of which is irrigation. There are a lot of species that require standing water that you can draw into the area, including dragonflies which are great for pest control.

 No.28632

>>28595
>>28612

Thanks folks. I thought there was more advantage to having a pond nearby tbh. According to heat exchanger sites it can make the exchanger more efficient somehow. This involves piping in water from the pond.

 No.28645

Trying to wrap my head around composting and it seems like every guide assumes you can get unlimited amounts of free stuff, whether its woodchips from arborists, coffee grinds from cafes, animal manure from farms, the list goes on. Ive tried all of these places with no luck. I was able to get free woodchips one time in my 7 years of gardening and that was because a neighbor brought a tree down and hooked me up cuz he knows I would use them. Otherwise the biomass industry is bustling, compost will run you a few bucks per gallon bucket even from community gardens
You can only go so far with grass clippings and the limbs you can steal from your neighbors trees that hang into your yard. I will even go out at night after a big storm and round up all the stray limbs, and in the fall I will steal peoples yard waste bags from in front of their house kek
i need moar
anyways I just planted so many fucking perennials im giddy with excitement.
black cherries, elderberries, chokeberries, raspberries, strawberries, and more. All of it is native so I hope the birds appreciate because I sure as shit dont get to harvest anything

 No.28646

>>28645
*per 5 gallon bucket but still

 No.28647

>>28645
You could do work clearing brush and weeds and stuff and get paid to collect mulch material.

 No.28649

>>28645
Put all the stuff you got from lawn mowing, fallen leaves plus organic kitchen waste like eggshells, coffee & vegetables (no meat and bones) in there. Faded flowers and plants, overshoot from fruit harvest and all sorts of weed go in there as well. Keep a haystack (doesnt matter if it gets wet over time) next to the compost and everytime you bring kitchen waste etc. put a layer hay on top. You can just leave it rot then and don't worry further. After 6-8 months processing it starts smelling like forest earth inside, that's when you can take the humus earth out.

 No.28650

>>28645
It's too bad all the pesticides and shit people dump on their lawns because grass clippings from boomers mowing their lawn would be ideal compost material.

 No.28658

you can also grow your own compost as part of a succession plan by coppicing or pollarding fast growing trees multiple times a year and then felling after 3-5 years when you get more established some people like to use perennial shrubs like comfrey or other things for "chop and drop" mulching

be very careful with hay straw a lot of places use herbicide resistant varieties in a system where they spray the whole field and it will persist in your soil for decades if you import it and kill everything sellers are ignorant and sometimes lie and it also persists through cows into their manure

 No.28659

>>28649
>Keep a haystack (doesnt matter if it gets wet over time) next to the compost and everytime you bring kitchen waste etc. put a layer hay on top
This is definitely where im screwing up, I put in plenty of nitrogen in grass and food scraps but I often struggle to get carbon outside of the fall. Its my fault for not planning better though, usually I just mow the leaves like a dunce. If in the fall I was to collect them into a pile to rot along with the woody debris I get instead of wasting it on the grass or pollinator gardens at best, I can probably make it last throughout the rest of the year
>>28658
damn thats a good idea. Ill be doing this unintentionally when I take out a few apple trees that didnt pan out, they still served a role in helping other get established and improving my soil. Maybe Ill replace one with maple or something.
Thanks chiefs

 No.28660

>>28647
meant to @ you too. Ya Ive been thinking about getting trained up to become an arborist because that would be the free biomass jackpot right there

 No.28977

The Natives versus Exotics Debate

>First, a word on terminology. The term invasive is emotionally loaded with negative connotations. The term implies that a species by itself can invade, yet the ability to invade is not held by any one species. Whether an organism can invade a new landscape depends on the interaction between it and its environment, both living and inanimate. Dropped into one new home, a species may thrive; in another it may fail utterly. Calling a species “invasive” is not good science. Following David Jacke in his book, Edible Forest Gardens, I will use the word opportunistic, which more accurately gives the sense that a species needs particular conditions to behave as it does. Many unruly exotic species are insipidly tame in their home habitat. Even the words native and exotic have their difficulties, although I continue to use them. Does exotic mean a species wasn’t here before you got here, or before the first botanist did, before Columbus, the first human, or what? Species are constantly in motion. We need to rethink these words and why we use them.


>Gardening with native plants has become not merely popular in recent years, it’s become a cause célèbre. Supporters of natural gardening can become quite exercised when someone recommends nonnative plants. Governments, agribusinesses, and conservation groups have spent millions of dollars trying to eradicate “exotic” species. Parks departments across the nation have enacted native-only policies for trails, playgrounds, and other public places. The arguments for natives have merit: of course we want to preserve our native species and their habitat. But much of the energy spent on yanking exotics and planting natives is misdirected and futile, evidenced by the failure of so many restoration projects in which the nonnatives quietly reestablish after the funding or labor pool runs out. Without major changes in our land-use practices, the campaign to eradicate exotic plants approaches futility. A little ecological knowledge shows why. Look at most opportunistic plants. European bittersweet and Japanese honeysuckle swarm over New England’s forest margins. Kudzu chokes the roadsides and forest edges in the South. Purple loosestrife sweeps across the waterways of both coasts and the Midwest, and Russian olive springs up as small forests in the West. In nearly every case, these plants are invading disturbed land and disrupted ecosystems, fragmented and degraded by grazing, logging, dams, road building, pollution, and other human activity. Less-disturbed ecosystems are much more resistant to opportunistic species, though opportunists can move into them if they establish at entry points such as road cuts and logging sites.


>One pro-native garden writer describes what he calls “the kudzu phenomenon, where an exotic displaces natives unless we constantly intervene.” But our intervention is the problem. We assume nature is making a mistake when it creates hybrid, fast-healing thickets, so rather than allowing disturbed habitat to stabilize, we keep disturbing it. We can spray and uproot bittersweet and honeysuckle all we want, but they’ll come right back. These are species that love sunlit edges, and we’ve carved forests into countless tiny pieces that have more edge than interior, creating perfect habitat for these exotics. The same goes for kudzu, loosestrife, and nearly all the rest. In the East, purple loosestrife followed the nineteenth-century canals into wetlands; and in the West it has barreled down irrigation ditches into marshland and ponds. Humans create perfect conditions for exotics to thrive. I’ve often heard blame put on one or another opportunistic species when a native species goes locally extinct. That’s understandable. When we lose something we love, we search for a scapegoat, and a newly arrived species makes a ready target. But virtually every time I’ve examined that charge, it turns out that the place had first been severely disturbed by development, logging, or other human use. The opportunist moved in after the primary damage was done and often in direct response to it.


>Opportunistic plants crave disturbance, and they love edges. Those are two things development spawns in huge quantity. Unless we stop creating edge and disturbance, our eradication efforts will be in vain, except in tiny patches. The best long-term hope for eliminating most opportunistic species lies in avoiding soil disturbance, restoring intact forest, and shading the newcomers out with other species. In other words, we need to create landscapes that are more ecologically mature. Opportunistic plants are, with a few exceptions such as English ivy, almost exclusively pioneer species that need sunlight, churned-up ground, and, often, poor soil. For example, kudzu, Scot’s broom, and Russian olive are nitrogen fixers whose role is to build soil fertility. So they prosper in farmed-out fields and overgrazed rangeland and are nature’s way of rebuilding fertility with what is available.


>Here’s why opportunistic plants are so successful. When we clear land or carve a forest into fragments, we’re creating lots of open niches. All that sunny space and bare soil is just crying out to be colonized by light- and fertility-absorbing green matter. Nature will quickly conjure up as much biomass as possible to capture the bounty, by seeding low-growing “weeds” into a clearing or, better yet, sprouting a tall thicket stretching into all three dimensions to more effectively absorb light and develop deep roots. That’s why forest margins are often an impenetrable tangle of shrubs, vines, and small trees: there’s plenty of light to harvest. Just inside the edge, though, where there is less light and little disturbance, forests are usuallyopen and spacious.


>When humans make a clearing, nature leaps in, working furiously to rebuild an intact humus and fungal layer, harvest energy, and reconstruct all the cycles and connections that have been severed. A thicket of fast-growing pioneer plants, packing a lot of biomass into a small space, is a very effective way to do this. Permaculture’s cooriginator, David Holmgren, calls these rampantly growing blends of natives and exotics “recombinant ecologies” and believes that they are nature’s effective strategy of assembling available plants to heal damaged land. Current research is showing the value and healing power of these new ecologies. If we clear out the thicket in the misguided belief that meadows should forever remain meadows even under heavy irrigation, or that all forest edges should have tidy, open understories, we are just setting the recovery process back. Nature will then relentlessly return to work, filling in with pioneer plants again. And she doesn’t care if a nitrogen fixer or a soil-stabilizing plant arrived via continental drift or a bulldozer’s treads, as long as it can quickly stitch a functioning ecosystem together.


>The sharply logged edge of a woodland abutted by a lawn or field—so common in suburbs—is a perfect home for sun-loving exotics. If we plant low trees and shrubs to soften these margins, thus swallowing up the sunlight that pierces the forest edges, the niche for the opportunist will disappear. Simply removing the exotic won’t do much good except in a highly managed yard. The plant will come right back into the perfect habitat that waits for it. That’s one reason that herbicide manufacturers are helping fund the campaign for native plants. They know a repeat customer when they see one. Nature abhors a vacuum—create one, and she’ll rush in with whatever’s handy. To eradicate opportunists, the habitat for it must be changed into a more mature, less hospitable landscape. The conditions that support the opportunist must be eliminated.


>This approach is far from “live and let live” and more effective than an eternity of weed pulling. Pioneer weedscapes may be nature’s way, but most people don’t want their yard edges to be a tangled thicket. Yards can be kept free from opportunists, particularly in small spaces and if we’re willing to be persistent for several seasons. But it’s hard to succeed when we’re stuck on the old “clear, spray, and curse” treadmill. An easier and more productive strategy is to learn from the more mature forest edges near us. Again, observing nature can teach us what species naturally nestle into the sunny margins of old woods. Look at these places, and you may find dogwood, cherry, crabapple, alder, or small varieties of maple. The species vary around the country, but edge-loving trees and shrubs are good candidates for jump-starting a yard or wood-lot margin toward a more mature ecological phase. Plant them at those overgrown woody edges to fill in the gaps before something you don’t want takes hold. You can’t fight nature—nature always bats last—but you can sometimes be first to get where it’s going.


>The nineteenth-century scientist Thomas Henry Huxley likened nature to a brilliant opponent in chess: “We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance.” Nature has a patience that humans lack. We may uproot some bittersweet or kudzu for a few seasons, but nature will keep reseeding it, year in, year out, waiting until we tire of the battle. Nature takes the long view.


>It is only our limited time frame that creates the whole “natives versus exotics” controversy. Wind, animals, sea currents, and continental drift have always dispersed species into new environments. Remember that for millions of years there have been billions of birds, traveling hundreds or thousands of miles, each with a few seeds in its gut or stuck to the mud on its feet. And each of these many billions of seeds, from thousands of species, is ready to sprout wherever the bird stops. The planet has been awash in surging, swarming species movements since life began. The fact that it is not one great homogeneous tangled weed lot is persuasive testimony to the fact that intact ecosystems are very difficult to invade.


>Our jet age mobility has arguably accelerated the movement of species in unnerving and often economically damaging ways. But eventually an opportunistic species, after a boom-and-bust period, comes into equilibrium with its surroundings. It may take a decade or a century, time spans that seem like an eternity to a home owner contending with bittersweet or star thistle. But one day the new species becomes “implicated” into the local ecosystem, developing natural enemies and encountering unwelcome environments that keep it in check.


>“Native” is merely a question of perspective: is a species native to this hillside, or this county, the bioregion, continent, or perhaps just to this planet? I see a certain irony in immigrant-descended Americans cursing “invasive exotics” for displacing native species. And often an opportunistic species is playing an important role, where nature is working on a problem that we may not recognize and using the best tools available. For example, purple loosestrife, perhaps the poster child of exotic-species eradication enthusiasts, turns out to be superb at both tolerating and cleaning up polluted water. It, like many other opportunistic species, is screaming out to us that there is a problem—contaminated water—and is one of nature’s best agents for solving the problem by scouring out the pollutants. Also, research is showing that once pollution levels recede to relative cleanliness, the loosestrife dies back. Other researchers have found that, contrary to assumptions, loosestrife patches support just as many native pollinators and birds as surrounding areas of native plants. This shows that we need to look deeper into our reasons for demonizing certain species.


>Of course, it is foolish to deliberately introduce a species known to be locally opportunistic. Permaculturists use a hierarchy of safety for choosing plants. First, use a native to fill the desired role if at all possible. If no natives for that niche exist, then use a tested exotic. Only after a great deal of research would a person then consider a small-scale introduction of a new exotic; and, to be honest, I have never done that, don’t personally know anyone who has, and don’t recommend it. There are thousands of species that have been tried in many habitats, and if one from that huge assortment won’t work, perhaps what you have in mind doesn’t need to be done.


>I love native plants and grow them whenever appropriate. But nearly the whole issue—from branding certain fast-spreading, soil-building pioneer plants as evil, to creating the conditions that favor their spread—stems from not understanding nature’s ways. When we think ecologically, the problem either evaporates as a misunderstanding or reveals solutions inherent in the life cycle of the opportunist.A plant will thrive only if conditions are right for it. Modify those conditions—eliminate edge, stop disturbing soil, cast shade with trees, clean up pollution—and that opportunist will almost surely cease to be a problem.


>I’m also uneasy with the adversarial, polarized relationship with plants that an overzealous enthusiasm for natives can foster. It can result in a “natives good, everything else bad” frame of mind that heats the gardener’s blood pressure to boiling at the sight of any exotic plant. Rage is not the best emotion to be carrying into the garden. And we’re all utterly reliant on nonnatives for so many of our needs. Look at our diet. Where did this morning’s breakfast come from? I’d be surprised if many Americans regularly consume a single plant native to their state. About the only common food crops native to North America are sunflowers, hops, squash, and some nuts and berries. Nearly everything we eat originated on other continents. Get rid of exotics, and most of us would be pretty hungry until we learned to prepare local roots, berries, nuts, and greens.

 No.28978

>>28977
Invasive means it outcompetes and damages the native ecosystem, not just that it is a thriving non-native.

 No.31700

>lawns are monoculture grass farms
>american proles who have grass farming as a hobby are trying to relive a semi agrarian past
conversion from grass farming to permaculture farming should be simple if there's enough material, educational, and cultural shift

 No.31701

>>31700
You might think this but lawns are too polluted by
>lead leached from garden hoses
>glyphosate from RoundupTM and similar chemicals from other weed killers
>various other poisons from pesticides
>various heavy metals from runoff from roof shingles
>various contaminants accumulating from car exhaust
You could technically do it but it would have pretty bad health consequences if you don't at least have a transition period where you decontaminate the soil and remodel the housing units and swap out the transportation for something that isn't actively contributing to that pollution. There are some solutions for that, at least. Sunflowers are pretty good at pulling contaminants from soil, but you have to then harvest the plants and dispose of them properly to actually remove the contaminants from the environment.

 No.31702


 No.31703

>>28977
I don't disagree with this, but it's idealist to consider human intervention as something alien to nature. People have always messed with vegetation, and we're likely going to win that "chess-game" in the long run. Consider all the technology that's going to come online in the next 1000 years.

 No.31704

>>31702
Well that's a nice dose of hopium. Thanks anon.

>>31703
>human intervention isn't separate from nature
>but we're going to win the "chess game" tho
These statements contradict each other. The fact that humans are a part of nature means that we can never "win the game." However much we "master" nature, what we are fundamentally doing is submitting ourselves to the laws of nature, just a particular subset of its natural laws (physics, engineering, etc instead of ecology).

 No.31706

>>31704
I bet ultra advanced ecology that understands even the most obscure tundra lichen and amazon flower nectar properties could reach levels of advancement eclipsing the industrial revolution in some areas of human endeavor like healthcare and diet

 No.31707

File: 1672454398009.png (458.76 KB, 900x381, ClipboardImage.png)

>>31706
People have already developed devices you can wear that house algae and do things like recycle your CO2 and produce sugars you can consume etc. Think the stillsuits from Dune but with more than just moisture.

 No.31709

>>31707
like? those just look like photoshop lol

 No.31710

>>31704
I think that the human tendency for modifying the environment will eventually culminate in the ability to engineer entire biospheres. There is no contradictions.
The problems we have today is not the fact that we mess with flora and fauna, it's perhaps more that our abilities are not yet advanced enough to realize our ambitions . That and capitalism, that's really shit at accounting for externalities.

 No.31711

>>31709
article: https://archive.ph/4d1mF

>Wearable biospheres

>These living, breathing, bio-engineered sources of energy function together as a makeshift factory, providing each space-suit with all the essentials necessary to sustain life in outer space. These digestive-track inspired 3-D printed suits are the result of a collaborative design created by MIT professor, Neri Oxman, and German designers, Christolph Bader and Dominik Kolb.

You can pretty readily find Oxman in particular talking about these kinds of projects.

 No.31714

>>7175
Permaculture isn't developed yet. We can develop advanced procedures, and even industrial processes using high quality reparable machines, to help harvesting. AI that detects harvestable fruit then tells workers to go pick it. Robots that pick it themselves using computer vision and flexible claw hands. We just haven't developed in that area yet. Remember that harvesting can be just-in-time. An orange is best left on the tree until someone wants it. Upon which they take a nice stroll with a long orange picker pole and walk to the orange grove in the forest and pick one or a few. Its a big agricultural revolution not a minor change that maintains distribution characteristics. Yes, it means weakening the urban rural divide. But that's a good thing since communism needs it.

 No.31715

>>31714
Also people forget that there's social utility for having community gardens that you can walk through as a park and just pick the fruit that's ready right off the tree etc. You can have a vegetable garden built into a housing unit such that people can just walk into it to grab some fruits and vegetables to put in a basket and take home. It doesn't take any special skills or any more labor to do that than it takes to go to the grocery, and it's actually doing the gathering behavior that grocery stores sink a lot of design effort into simulating.

Stuff like eggs or grains take more effort but not necessarily more in total than it takes under capitalist mechanized production. And tbh the different elements of food production are things that should be part of general knowledge in the same way that cooking should be, since regardless of what other technology we develop we still are going to need food production.

 No.31716

>>31715
Ya. If anything the idea if the food industry should be deconstructed and instead everyone, especially men, should be taught to cook from raw ingredients.

Also, there's an issue of excess production. What if nobody picks some oranges and they're wasted? Well, for this we need distribution and transportation. But it will be orders if magnitude less than the current system. For this we also need excess labor. It can involve labor quotas saying you must work your monthly quota similar to old agricultural pagan festivals where the whole community got together.

 No.31731

>>31715
>Stuff like eggs or grains take more effort but not necessarily more in total than it takes under capitalist mechanized production.
>>31716
> If anything the idea if the food industry should be deconstructed

Before mechanization was a thing 90% of labor was used to make food.
After mechanization was introduced and fully developed the labor share on food production fell to about 3%

I do like the idea of community gardens and preparing meals your self instead of eating processed fast food. But It would be crazy to go back to an agrarian mode of production. You cannot turn back the clock on machine automation. If you want to do permaculture methods instead of traditional farming methods you still need to use lots of machines as labor saving devices.

 No.31733

>>31731
>After mechanization was introduced and fully developed the labor share on food production fell to about 3%
That doesn't account for the labor that goes into every aspect of the food industry besides the direct production of food, including all the labor involved in the industries that support agriculture, like producing fertilizers or the machines that are involved in said mechanization.

But putting that aside, one of the most common ways that people express alienation under capitalism is in the form of separation from the production that sustains them. Fantasies about growing your own food are ridiculously common. Video games simulating agriculture or even just survivalism are wildly popular. Maximum production efficiency (for a certain view of efficient - capitalism wastes a huge amount of food) is not the only thing to consider here. Some things could be produced better in larger areas of dedicated farmland, but that would still benefit from an intelligently designed system where crops are interplanted rather than isolated as monocultures etc.

I think what the other anon was getting at is that we really need to better integrate living areas and productive areas into mixed use urban planning that includes agricultural production. Nobody wants to fully return to agrarian production, just bring that form of production closer to the destination and integrate it more into the average person's lifestyle when it comes to the end stages (harvesting and preparing food).

Not everyone needs to or should be planting and harvesting all the time, but everyone should have enough training to function at that capacity if they needed to. If something were to happen to disrupt our large scale supply chain we would need to support the population while the problem was being fixed. At the moment we do not really have a way to do that.

>If you want to do permaculture methods instead of traditional farming methods you still need to use lots of machines as labor saving devices.

The key labor saving "device" in permaculture is the fact that when you intelligently design the system, it can function productively with little input. Instead of having to repeatedly plow fields, drop fertilizer, spread pesticides, and so on, you account for these needs with the species you include. Plants and animals function best when they are in an ecosystem that suits their needs. Industrial farming we use today attempts to simulate this by having people or machines fulfill those needs with products manufactured to do so, but you can bring in species to do all of those things. If you have worms in your soil you can attract moles which will aerate the soil and improve irrigation (and are carnivores who won't eat your plants). Many plants fertilize themselves by dropping leaves seasonally, but you can also co-plant specific species that will improve the contents of the soil, particularly plants that fix nitrogen and other elements or which can tape into minerals deeper in the soil. Pests are best controlled by introducing predators, many of which are attracted to certain plants or may be kept as livestock (like chickens). Pest-predatory species double as an extra source of fertilizer.

The problem with your critique is that you are thinking of technology in terms of building a machine in a factory rather than more generally as arranging forces and materials in a particular way. The former is pushed onto people by capitalism because a machine made in a factory is the kind of technology you can most easily commodify, and it's dangerous to bring that thinking into socialism.

>>31716
>What if nobody picks some oranges and they're wasted?
They'd probably fall to the ground and be recycled into the system just like happens in nature with uneaten food. That includes animals scavenging the food, which is normal and fine because it will help fertilize the soil.

 No.31737

>>31731
>I do like the idea of community gardens and preparing meals your self instead of eating processed fast food. But It would be crazy to go back to an agrarian mode of production. You cannot turn back the clock on machine automation. If you want to do permaculture methods instead of traditional farming methods you still need to use lots of machines as labor saving devices.
Fuck off capitalist agribusiness shill. Communism is a radical change in the mode of food production. Read the thread. Even few posts ago. Mechanization of common human tasks is always possible. But the underlying ecology takes primacy on the matter of climate change. So figure it out, its the task we face.

 No.31777

permaculture maintains its own environment and micro-climate which automatically maintains its life functions while continuing to bear usable plants which self-replenish. modern agriculture on the other hand has to continuously pump in its ingredients from other places, both needing replenishment and leaving residues and degradations to the original environment. in other words, it's objectively worse than a mature permaculture food forest based agricultural system

 No.31794

>>31733
>That doesn't account for the labor that goes into every aspect of the food industry besides the direct production of food, including all the labor involved in the industries that support agriculture, like producing fertilizers or the machines that are involved in said mechanization.
Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it and can produce enough fertilizer to support food production for tens or hundreds of millions of people. You seem to have no idea how ridiculously high labor productivity in primary sector industries has become.

>The key labor saving "device" in permaculture is the fact that when you intelligently design the system, it can function productively with little input. Instead of having to repeatedly plow fields, drop fertilizer, spread pesticides, and so on, you account for these needs with the species you include. Plants and animals function best when they are in an ecosystem that suits their needs.

That sounds very good, but how can that be true ?
Permaculture isn't new, people have been doing that for thousands of years.
People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.

Your claims about the labor inputs of permaculture do not pass the sniff test.
I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor
https://medium.com/invironment/permaculture-design-courses-the-free-labor-problem-152000bb420b
I don't know how common this is but my guess is that permaculture in it's present form is very labor intensive compared to other methods.

If you were to be advocating for a scheme that proposes modifying/replacing tractors and combine-harvesters with farming machinery designed to do permaculture specific tasks , as in mechanized permaculture, i could see this as something interesting worth investigating and trying. But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor, i can't take you seriously. People have been trying to do that for at least 10k years, if that was possible it would already be the default farming technique. I get the same vibe from you as those people futilely trying to build "free energy" perpetual motion machines who endlessly tweak their mechanical contraptions, just replace mechanical contraptions with plant compositions.

If you position permaculture in opposition to industrial production, it's never going to catch on. What you are doing is not effective advocacy.

 No.31796

>>31794
>i can't take you seriously
>I get the same vibe from you
>it's never going to catch on
>Your claims do not pass the sniff test.
This isn't twitter.

>Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it

Where do they get the raw materials though? Factories don't make things out of thin air.
The inputs for fertilizers involve mining for phosphorous and calcium components which is not sustainable and in many parts of the world is still labor intensive (and a lot of the stuff used in industrialized countries gets imported from countries where it's labor intensive production). And the factory has to be built first, as well as integrated into the production supply chain. All of this is additional process that is often not necessary when fertilizer can be produced nearby or on site with the proper organisms. And that's to say nothing of integrating waste disposal systems to recycle human waste into fertilizer.

>People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.

Well they did that in some parts of the world while in others people figured it out. Either the premise that people will figure out a solution if it's possible is wrong or the conditions simply didn't allow this in many places. Or both. Another likely reason is that permaculture and similar methods make it harder to establish property boundaries that are necessary for a ruling class to emerge. Fields tend to have clear borders while a food forest blends into the natural woodland and people's living spaces. How food production is controlled has huge political implications. Another big reason is that deforestation was carried out in many places (especially Europe) which significantly reduced biodiversity making it harder to create a full ecosystem of production. Desertification is a major issue with cutting down forests to operate monoculture fields, because it further reduces the fertility of the land and erodes it.

>I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor

That's not an analysis of the required labor inputs. It's just pointing out part of what (the trademarked version of) permaculture does. Which they do because part of the goal is to educate people. Free labor from students might be dubious, but people in capitalism follow the rules of capitalism. You have to actually do things to be trained, and the money they make and save allows them to promote the process more. Nothing is stopping people from learning it on their own or from elsewhere and implementing it. There are plenty of examples unrelated to the Permaculture™ education industry if that's what you don't like.

>If you were to be advocating for a scheme that proposes modifying/replacing tractors and combine-harvesters with farming machinery designed to do permaculture specific tasks , as in mechanized permaculture

The problem with this is that those machines and monoculture have developed in tandem and mechanized permaculture would need to pretty much go back to the drawing board with machines because by design you don't have huge fields of a single plant that you can mass-harvest. Part of the reason why some parts of the world did things that way is because once you start going in that direction, the optimizations required for that method make it more difficult to pivot into any other approach.
>But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor
Nobody said all the labor. The point is to leverage what the organisms will naturally do and reduce the need for mechanizing in the automation process. There's more to efficient production than the ratio of labor to capital. If you can produce the same amount or more with equal labor but less capital, it's "more labor intensive" even if people do the same amount of labor, simply because the capital side of the ratio was simplified. And the truth of the matter is that the organisms are already doing a significant portion of the work in a physical sense, but this is simply ignored in your calculations in the same way as businesses ignore externalities like pesticide and fertilizer runoff. The notion that we need to keep mechanizing and definitely can't reverse because of the labor:capital ratio is the same kind of abstract economics brain rot as "line go up."

 No.31803

>>31796
> fertilizers is not sustainable
Current methods are not sustainable , true, but they do need very few labor inputs.
Industrial fertilizer production could however be made sustainable, the science and engineering problems are solved, it's just that capitalists don't like to invest in upgrading their means of production if they still can milk profits from the old capital stock.
Upgrading fertilizer production to sustainable techniques would of course also require labor inputs, but that's going to be a one-time expense, not an ongoing one.

Remember I'm replying to your original assertion that industrial food production has high labor inputs, which is patently false.
You have indirectly made an additional argument that industrial production can't be sustainable, that is an altogether different point, and in my opinion also false.
Industrial production means human labor-power enhanced by machines, there is nothing inherently unsustainable in this. You appear to be making a false generalization, because currently some (by no means all) industrial praxis is not sustainable. Alot of industrial un-sustainability can be explained with capitalist investment reluctance, and has little to do with industrial production in general.

>they did permaculture in some parts of the world

If permaculture had used less labor inputs, these parts of the world would have been able to develop faster and become the dominant system.
Remember that making food production less labor intensive paved the way for societal and technological development.
Given that before the industrial revolution and the green revolution, roughly 90% of all labor was spend on food production, having a farming technique that required less labor would have been a huge advantage. There is no way that the people with the inferior food production method are able to become the dominant powers in the world during that time . Even if we stipulate something preposterous like permaculture food makes people peaceful and unwilling to conquer, they would still have developed so much faster that they would have been indomitable. There would be peaceful scifi countries in the world that would have been invulnerable to conquistadors showing up with sail/steam-boat gunships, filled with musket wielding soldiers.

>Nothing is stopping people from learning it on their own or from elsewhere and implementing it. There are plenty of examples unrelated to the Permaculture™ education industry if that's what you don't like.

So what prevents permaculture from taking over ? Capitalism does try to minimize investment into machine capital and labor inputs, you are saying that perma-culture uses less labor and less machines. it doesn't add up. Why are they still scamming students instead off out-competing big-agro-business ?

>The problem with this is that those machines and monoculture have developed in tandem and mechanized permaculture would need to pretty much go back to the drawing board with machines

This sounds true, but why is that a problem ? Having to design new machines hasn't stopped us before.

>The point is to leverage the organisms

No the point is to make food, and the ultimate goal is to have a hole in the wall that will molecularly construct a cup of tea from a material-cartridge if you say "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"

>There's more to efficient production than the ratio of labor to capital. If you can produce the same amount or more with equal labor but less capital, it's "more labor intensive" even if people do the same amount of labor, simply because the capital side of the ratio was simplified.

I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
Not sure where this came from, but to be clear i think un-mechanised permaculture would produce less food per unit of labor power inputs.

>And the truth of the matter is that the organisms are already doing a significant portion of the work in a physical sense, but this is simply ignored in your calculations

that's true, but I only care about human labor, plants are just biological machines.

> businesses ignore externalities like pesticide and fertilizer runoff.

that's also true, but the environmental cause has to be about building cleaner machines not going back to working people harder

 No.31804

>>31794
>Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it
Great, but you forgot all the workers that run the companies that give them their input raw materials, transport them, build the cars that transport them, drill and process the oil that powers the transportation, maintain the financial system that links all of this together, etc.

>>31794
>People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.
Yeah and that's exactly what they did in many cases. But modern agricultural production allows predictable and uniform production of food. Permaculture is sporadic and harder to understand and use the products, but it makes better effective use of the soil, square footage, and takes care of the soil and creates micro-climates. You have to look at the greater system not inputs and outputs, you have to look dialectically at what it means when a region of land is enclosed and turned into and input output system

>>31794
>I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor
It's not profitable, it's not compatible with capitalism, but that's the point

>>31794
>But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor, i can't take you seriously
Why are you just making up shit?

 No.31805

>>31803
>So what prevents permaculture from taking over ? Capitalism does try to minimize investment into machine capital and labor inputs, you are saying that perma-culture uses less labor and less machines. it doesn't add up. Why are they still scamming students instead off out-competing big-agro-business ?
Anon, permaculture requires more human labor than an individual field growing crops using modern agriculture. That's because of capitalism's division of labor. The net labor to produce one edible food though is much lower with permaculture since entire industries and supply chains are avoided. And minimizing labor isn't even the only goal, another is preventing climate change from happening further which will require massive quantities of future labor to undo the harm from and adapt to in more extreme circumstances. Your reductive attitude is really missing the bigger picture and other interconnected issues

 No.31806

>>31803
>I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
>Not sure where this came from, but to be clear i think un-mechanised permaculture would produce less food per unit of labor power inputs.
Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories. But you aren't realizing this will be stopped by climate change. When water supplies rapidly dry up and shift, when climate change makes entire regions not able to produce similar crops, when massive swarms of disease and pests can take out entire monoculture fields of crops, the efficiency will not be maintained.

Only permaculture food forests, note the "perma" in its name, can keep self-maintaining ecosystems of food producing plants thriving. If you don't think we can rapidly produce robots to reduce the human labor if we truly needed to, think again
>Drones that automatically scan forest for harvestable food above and below ground
>Communication systems that tell workers where to go to harvest
>Robots that come and harvest it and transport it to transportation vehicles

None of this is developed because permaculture has not been done in the modern age on any mass scale. And it won't because the capital requirements are too high, and profit opportunity low. It's a socialist technology

 No.31807

>>31806
>Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories.
Another problem that tends to get ignored on this topic is that maximizing calories has been to the detriment of nutrition. To get a wider variety of foods that form a better balanced diet, you necessarily have to sacrifice calorie output. It's not like industrial agriculture operates on the margins either - it's able to produce vastly in excess of what people actually need, to the point that it has caused major crises of overproduction. Like the guy coming ITT to complain seems to think that we are in danger of starvation if we don't produce food maximally and with the lowest labor input possible, but the reality is that we're in danger of starvation because the current system is destroying the material basis of its own existence…

 No.31808

>>31807
Great point. A varied and even seasonal diet as well as individual canning abilities and food preservation knowledge would go a long way to improving nutrition. Starvation is not something we are on the brink of, rather as you said capitalists prevent us from building truly strong food systems like permaculture which are not profitable because they are inherently communal

 No.31809

File: 1672965841386.jpg (60.54 KB, 1205x881, genie.jpg)

>>31803
>I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
Then you should love permaculture because the whole point is automating the system through ecological design instead of being dependent solely on mechanization! Less mechanization (capital) used in agricultural production means that more capital can be used for other things.

 No.31810

>>31803
>No the point is to make food, and the ultimate goal is to have a hole in the wall that will molecularly construct a cup of tea from a material-cartridge if you say "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"
Nice scifi shit. The point actually is to achieve worker control of the means of production and achieve "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability", remember what board you are on.

 No.31811

>>31803
>Given that before the industrial revolution and the green revolution, roughly 90% of all labor was spend on food production, having a farming technique that required less labor would have been a huge advantage. There is no way that the people with the inferior food production method are able to become the dominant powers in the world during that time .
The roadblock in most cases was lack of resources. The average peasant only had access to the seeds of certain local plants, whereas today people around the world can obtain seeds to grow anything that will survive in their environment. And even if peasants could get their hands on any seeds, they wouldn't know anything about the foreign plants in terms of what they need or their effects on the environment around them. Today we have the internet and most people could feasibly research these things.

Additionally, it was typical to practice widespread logging both to provide lumber for building and to better control the land (it's easier for bandits and rebels to hide among the trees). The loss of forests isn't just the loss of trees, but all the other ecological niches in a forest biome. Farmland and grazing land is a very different environment that supports different (and fewer) species. There used to be people surviving on agroforestry as a kind of intermediate method between gathering and "agriculture." In many cases they were conquered by other people who were driven to expand their territory. While "traditional" agricultural methods allow for a division of labor, they also degrade the land and require acquisition of new territory to farm, which acted as a driver to take over cultures practicing sustainable or regenerative food production, replacing that with "traditional" farming.

 No.31812

>>31804
Current industrial food production really does not involve a lot of labor-power, that's not some capitalist accounting cheat, that's looking at the entire system. People in the past were not too stupid to use permaculture, seriously wtf?. They also were able to modify food so that it lasts a long time, and they were able to plan for sporadic production. And square footage of soil is not that important, it doesn't justify wasting more labor power than necessary

I think un-mechanized permaculture is not profitable because it's using too much labor. While socialism doesn't care about profits, it still cares about getting stuff done with as little labor as possible. Nobody likes to work more than they have to.

>>31805
>The net labor to produce one edible food though is much lower with permaculture since entire industries and supply chains are avoided.
I could believe that if you were advocating for mechanized permaculture, maybe the industrial stack for perma-culture would use less labor. However Industrial systems tend to be orders of magnitude more effective compared to manual labor praxis, in term of the ratio for labor input versus production output. What you are saying isn't even remotely plausible.

>>31806
>Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories.
Well, lets not be to hasty, there's always fully synthetic food production that might eventually get more efficient, and maybe also more palatable ;)

>But you aren't realizing this will be stopped by climate change. When water supplies rapidly dry up and shift, when climate change makes entire regions not able to produce similar crops, when massive swarms of disease and pests can take out entire monoculture fields of crops, the efficiency will not be maintained.

If that's true and the situation for food security gets as dire as you say, i guess maybe synthetic food production will get more popular. You know the artificial starch-synthesizer powered by the nuclear reactor next to it might not look as bad when food is super expensive and scarce.

>rapidly produce robots to reduce human labor

>Drones that automatically scan forest for harvestable food above and below ground
>Communication systems that tell workers where to go to harvest
>Robots that come and harvest it and translport it to transportation vehicles
Big thumbs up for that plan
This sounds like perma-culture i could get behind.

> It's a socialist technology

maybe

 No.31813

>>31812
>If that's true and the situation for food security gets as dire as you say, i guess maybe synthetic food production will get more popular. You know the artificial starch-synthesizer powered by the nuclear reactor next to it might not look as bad when food is super expensive and scarce.
You're so desperate for things to get bad that you somehow fail to see permaculture is the way to prevent them from getting bad. We literally want to re-forest the world with edible plants and you want "artificial starch powered by nuclear reactors" give me a break

 No.31814

>>31812
I also hate your smug attitude coming into the permaculture thread as if you're the expert on something because you can posit bullshit about nuclear reactors, and write every other sentence in the form "I can't get behind this", "I could believe this if you were advocating for" when you clearly don't even know anything about permaculture or human dietary needs

 No.31815

>>31812
>Nobody likes to work more than they have to.
People like making their own food though. Gardening is a very popular hobby. If you knew your Marx you would be aware that he says communism is supposed to abolish the distinction between work and leisure. A more labor intensive food production process (which isn't even necessarily true) like permaculture is serving other purposes as well, including ecological repair, social cohesion, and personal enjoyment.

 No.31816

>>31812
>fully synthetic food production
This is basically magical thinking. Synthetic food production still requires raw inputs and all the industries required to make the food factory exist. You criticize permaculture for being impractical and you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.

Bro you are dumb as shit.

 No.31817

>>31815
>Gardening is a very popular hobby
Yeah. The poor are actively prevented from having a place to grow their food. Historically peasants and slaves were allowed (forced) to grow their own food to survive. But the proletariat is not even allowed to do that, they're forced to purchase it in commodity form. Beautiful nature and gardens are reserved for the bourgeoisie or wealth proletariat.

I want this for everyone, even the poor, and for it to be livable. This is do-able, in fact I would posit that the native plants of every bio-region are enough to survive on when placed into a well designed food forest. There are exceptions and help that can be had by non-native plants and even transporting food though, that doesn't need to be abolished

 No.31818

>>31813
>You're so desperate for things to get bad
You brought that up stop projecting. You have to admit that if things get bad, within the current structures, industrial food synthesizers are way more likely than billions of people starting their own perma-food-garden, at least 50% of the population lives in cities where food-gardens can't possibly produce enough for bare survival subsistence level. Do you think all those people will move, and start the largest migration in human history, or do you think they go for a techno-fix that lets them continue with their life-style even if it doesn't taste very good.

>>31814
Nuclear reactors could also power farming robots for mechanized perma-culture.
And i dislike you to, because you want to have a nature-essentialism circle jerk, and exclude discussion about applying industrial methods to stuff like perma-culture

>>31815
>People like making their own food though. Gardening is a very popular hobby.
it's fun as a hobby, sure, but if you have to live of that, it's not fun at all, it turns into brutally hard work.

>>31816
>This is basically magical thinking.
No , it's near future stuff, the basic food stuffs can be made.
>Synthetic food production still requires raw inputs
Sure but there is no reliance on weather or climate conditions.
>You criticize permaculture for being impractical and you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.
No i don't think perma-culture is impractical, i'm criticizing the people that do not want to apply industrial methods to perma-culture.
>you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.
As an aspirational goal, so people can understand the direction it's going.
I know scifi replicators are a bit unrealistic, if you move that many individual atoms quickly they would heat up from friction and Picard's tea would be as hot as the sun and burn him to death just from standing next it, but that's not really the point.

 No.31819

>>31818
>Sure but there is no reliance on weather or climate conditions.
Instead is just relies on a functional global supply chain, which definitely isn't threatened by climate change!

 No.32343

File: 1675649455637.jpg (49.23 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

Has anyone tried raising lobster in a permaculture farm? I've heard of people doing fish, lobsters have legs so I dunno if they'd stay.

 No.32344

>>32343
https://aquaponicsadvisor.com/raise-lobster-at-home/
seems doable but probably requires a lot more effort than just doing fish or something. Skimming this article the biggest hurdle seems to be that lobsters are territorial so youll need a lot of space

 No.32345

>>32343
also if the point of the post was to say
>lobsters have legs so Idk if they will stay
I did indeed laugh

 No.32347

>>32343
Pretty fucked up to pen in animals in general tbh desu

 No.32348

>>31819
<horn
<<tst

 No.32356

>>32343
>I dunno if they'd stay.
Then make it nice for them smh

 No.32357

>>32343
Have a feeling a saltwater aquaponics system would be pretty intense to upkeep. Additionally, have a feeling lobsters need a lot of space between them, so you can't get as much meat per tank as you can w fish.

 No.32358


 No.32361

>>32358
Very cool.

 No.32364

>>7141
this was an interesting read. Where is it from?

 No.33020

Anyone running a permaculture garden? I really want to but can't get land

 No.33021

>>33020
Do it in big pots seriously free veggies and maybe fruit

 No.33022

>>33021
Herbs

 No.33023

>>33020
>I really want to but can't get land
Which is why the whole permaculture bullshit is nothing but a pettit boug or actual boug bullshit. It's likt dong charity without doung actual charity, but still acting like you are saving the world.

Permaculture is mostly an overblown fashion trend. Most of it is not really applicable to to climates outside of subtropics. And where it is applicable it's not going outside of some wealthy snob garden because it can't compete in profits with industrial agriculture techniques.

 No.33024

>>33023
Imma grow herbs and maybe veggies in a terrarium in my cupboard just to spite you

Also seedbombing

 No.33028

>>33024
lessee the coolest method I can think of for the cupboard terrarium is red light emiting diodes a few blue and hook it all up to a battery and a solar panel in the window

I suspect it'd grow interesting chillis and garlic done right

 No.33030

>>33024
That ain't permaculture, lol. Seem like most of you retards don't even know what you are talking about.
>>33028
>red light emiting diodes a few blue and hook it all up to a battery and a solar panel in the window
Sure, you can grow something like that. It's just gonna cost you several times more than what you can buy in the store or market.

Like i said, for people like me gardening is way to get sustenance, for people like you it's an expensive hoddy that makes you feel better.

 No.33033

>>33030
>Sure, you can grow something like that. It's just gonna cost you several times more than what you can buy in the store or market.
It's a motherfucking terrarium the point of those is that you can just leave them sitting for years in a corner and water then once in a blue moon

Just cut a bit of glass and make a box air seal the seams and you can leave it in a corner and just add a bit of water once every few months

My brother in Marx seedbombing is indeed permaculture if you make the plant you choose a useful edible tasty endemic weed
FUCK THE CONSERVATIONISTS PEACE LAND AND BREAD

 No.33035

>>33033
>It's a motherfucking terrarium the point of those is that you can just leave them sitting for years in a corner and water then once in a blue moon
Add the cost of lights that aren't gonna kill your plants to the cost fo solar panels. Each of those has a limited time of working before it breaks down. See how many harvests you gonna get from that time. Divide the costs by harvest, asess how much crops you have per harvest. Do the math, dumbass.

At least grow the shrooms or something.

>My brother in Marx seedbombing is indeed permaculture if you make the plant you choose a useful edible tasty endemic weed

Anarcholibs are not my brothers. Second, permaculture differs from regular organic gardening by being "perma" (who would have thought, right?), meaning that it focuses on crops that can give something without being destroyed. Graclic is definitely not the permaculture crop. At least read Permaculture One or something, booklet.

 No.33037

>>33035 (me)
>Second, permaculture differs from regular organic gardening by being "perma" (who would have thought, right?), meaning that it focuses on crops that can give something without being destroyed
Also it aims to create sustainable ecosystem that you disrupt as little as possible. Terarium with garlic is not. I don't think that would even qualify as organic gardening. What is your plan to help the soil in restoring itself, for example?

 No.33038

>>33037
You'd be amazed at the efficiency gains plants are green because they reject that spectrum precisely

More importantly garlic and presumably other aliums grows great in dog poop and human feces

You'll thank me if the lights go out for several years a person can live on onions potatoes and carrots

Now let's talk about Cuba's food gardens that some people call degrowth even though in reality it is a kind of regrowth within an austerity caused by the United snakes blockade

 No.33041

>>33038
You NEVER grew crops in your life, am i correct?

Good luck with doctor's appointment, i at least hope you are not in burgerstan and can recieve healthcare services that don't cost exurbitant fees.

 No.33043

>>33041
I've grown shit on literally cracks in the pavement
What crops have you grown?

 No.33044

>>33043
Everything, from potatoes and cabbage to cucumbers and tomatoes, to berries and nuts. I grow food to eat, dumbfuck. I grew up in a family where we had to grow our food or starve and for the last 7 years i have my own garden to fulfill like 70% of what i need in food another 25% comes from other villagers and remaining 5% from stores (stuff like salt and tea).

Good luck growing garlic on shit, but at least use your own, that way on the off chance you don't kill it with too much nitrogen, you at least not gonna acquire some exciting guests in your guts.

>I've grown shit on literally cracks in the pavement

Are you retarded or pretending to be one for some reason?

 No.33645

>>33044
You are based anon, please redpill us on self sufficiency?

 No.33649


 No.33724

>>33649
Learn to link, moron >>>/hobby/33648

 No.34910

>>12983
>>>19342
This was a post replying to >>12751
I have found it and am reposting it finally with the pdfs and images that were included
Wayback is how I found my old effort post
https://web.archive.org/web/https://bunkerchan.xyz/hobby/res/12707.html

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.

 No.40698



Unique IPs: 60

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]