It’s still “bad” for some values of bad. I’ve demonstrated on my own farm that it’s possible to employ permaculture-ish principles (permies freak out when I say that) and make an adequate living. But make no mistake, you are supplanting nature and interacting with it in competitive and often adverse ways no matter how what practices you use. It’s kind of a spectrum - the better the interface with nature is, the less viable it is financially and vice-versa.
You’d be right if people started permaculture in untouched Amazon, but they don’t. Like easily 30%+ of soil in most countries (exceptions aside like Russia or Finland) have been exploited by humans for decades if not centuries. Biomes have been so modified in these places that nature would take insanely long times (in human timespan) to recover. Steading it and directing it with the input of humans can be a great way to accelerate that and get something for humans in return.
I wouldn’t say mostly. There’s plenty of BS around it since it’s very prone to attracting hippies, and there’s plenty of grifting around it and pseudoscience as well. But some concepts such as certain plant species working together, soil regeneration, planting pollinator-attracting plants, diversity to prevent plagues, organizing land in such a way that it’s most useful to people and more intensive the closest to them and less intensive the further it is, reusing every output as much as possible and minimising artificial inputs, working with nature and not against it… There’s plenty of valid themes in permaculture than can be used.
Nope. Regenerative agriculture is absolutely a thing. I recommend you check the video series on Al Bayda’s permaculture project, really worth a watch.
It’s still “bad” for some values of bad. I’ve demonstrated on my own farm that it’s possible to employ permaculture-ish principles (permies freak out when I say that) and make an adequate living. But make no mistake, you are supplanting nature and interacting with it in competitive and often adverse ways no matter how what practices you use. It’s kind of a spectrum - the better the interface with nature is, the less viable it is financially and vice-versa.
You’d be right if people started permaculture in untouched Amazon, but they don’t. Like easily 30%+ of soil in most countries (exceptions aside like Russia or Finland) have been exploited by humans for decades if not centuries. Biomes have been so modified in these places that nature would take insanely long times (in human timespan) to recover. Steading it and directing it with the input of humans can be a great way to accelerate that and get something for humans in return.
Permaculture is mostly bollocks.
I wouldn’t say mostly. There’s plenty of BS around it since it’s very prone to attracting hippies, and there’s plenty of grifting around it and pseudoscience as well. But some concepts such as certain plant species working together, soil regeneration, planting pollinator-attracting plants, diversity to prevent plagues, organizing land in such a way that it’s most useful to people and more intensive the closest to them and less intensive the further it is, reusing every output as much as possible and minimising artificial inputs, working with nature and not against it… There’s plenty of valid themes in permaculture than can be used.
I agree, but the well is so utterly poisoned.