kathryn marsh wrote:
> > Perhaps because permaculture, by insisting on copyrighting its name and
> > clinging tight to the manual and approved instructors cuts itself off from
> > the evolutionary nature of deep ecology - its an instruction book not a
> > movement
Betsy wrote:
> I think deep ecology also wouldn't embrace the term "permanent" applied to
> culture or ecology. It fits with a definition of permaculture in the
context of
> integrated *agriculture* and *cultured* ecology, but the idea of "permanent
> culture and ecology" denies the notion, which I think is central to deep
ecology,
> that the Earth is in constant flux and change is the only constant.
Nothing in
> ecology, or human culture either, can ever be "permanent" in a way that
implies
>"unchanging." Does permaculture say anything about wilderness, or the wild?
> This is integral to deep ecology.
>
> I see deep ecology as a philosophy, permaculture as a practice.
Permaculture is
> being one of the many ways that a deep ecological philosophy can be lived.
> Other ways include bioregionalism, voluntary simplicity, sustainable
economics,
> grassroots democracy, celebration of diversity (as contrasted with
"tolerance")
> and Earth-centered spirituality.
Very good comments. I'm not sure the "permanent" part of Permaculture
implies unchanging (sustainable, more likely), but it's still a good point.
Thanks.
I also see Deep Ecology as more open. I also think it is a good
philosophical base (with a few clarifications) for many of the other things
Betsy listed. With Deep Ecology, the emphasis seems to be on the
philosophy and is a little weak in applications. Permaculture, on the
other hand, is heavy on the "application", but a little weak in the it's
philosophy.
Eric Storm
