The Permaculture list has been having a debate about the cost of Permaculture courses. One view says; many trying to live Permaculture can't afford courses so are courses just for wealthy people who want to teach courses (possibly a bunch of elites). Another view is that teachers have to live and money helps give them time to teach. Without money to live there wouldn't be a course in the first place. Up to this point i can see both sides of this and don't feel either view is wrong. But, today this point was made. Or it may be that there is a glut of teachers and designers trying to reach too small an audience: a hothouse effect. The glut, I think, is because most of us in Pc (in the US, at least) are from middle- and upper-middle class backgrounds and thus want intellectual work. For most of us, farming, though a noble profession, isn't a real option. Whoops, this raises some questions: Do teachers of Pc use the principles in their life or are they teaching something they do not experience and have no feedback from? Should the act of teaching fall under Permaculture principles and what would these principles be? To a large extent Permaculture is local knowledge and designs that fit local ecology. Holmgren once made the point that he didn't feel comfortable teaching without first living and experiencing local conditions. Is this part of the ethics? Perhaps the problem is because much of Pc knowledge is intuitive and homespun, almost obvious in a sense, and comes largely from observation. Anyone can do it. Is it really true that everyone can do it? A student can never do it if they believe a teacher has to give them the needed guidance. Only a student who feels empowered to seek their own path will be able to. I think one problem is that Permaculture teachers sell the idea that Permaculture needs intensive courses to insure that the quality and understanding are passed on. I would prefer if places to find information were suggested and the student made responsible for their own education. Then, suggest that the best path is face-to-face courses. Leave the door open for everyone. Also included in here is the idea that all teachers have areas they need more knowledge and are themselves students. Separating people into teachers and students does not seem like good community building. Maybe as Holmgren suggests, we don't need professional permaculturists, just architects, teachers, farmers, etc. with a Pc perspective. But in this very young field, the niches are still in flux, and I believe that for the time being, there's a real value-even one worth money-in promoting permaculture by teaching and design. Hummm, I thought Holmgren said Permaculture is a design system that applies to life. It fits in many places and a teacher living the ideas is a more effective message. Also, one of the biggest needs today is the "permanent culture" part of Pc which is around all of us. Isn't the way we teach part of "permanent culture" building? Do Pc teachers work at becoming part of "permanent culture" and isn't this part of the course? My bias is that the ethics of Permaculture and the ethics of most contemporary cultures are not in harmony. On one side we have the idea that resources are owned, profits should be maximized (greed isn't recognized) and competition is the way of the world. On the other hand we have the idea that some sharing is necessary and resources need to be conserved. Most of us are stuck surviving in contemporary culture and have to balance the two sets of ethics. It's OK to do this but lets recognize what we are doing and do it deliberately. jeff
