How to distinguish permaculture from natural farming
What are the differences between permaculture and natural farming? How are they related and where do they differ in philosophy and principles?
The answers to these questions can be found in A revolutionary with one strawa book delving into the philosophy and work of Japanese farmer and philosopher Masanobu Fukuoka. In the following excerpt, author Larry Korn compares two crucial approaches to regenerative agriculture – permaculture and natural farming. Additional sections of the book compare natural farming with indigenous farming, Japanese farming, and organic farming. Korn, who studied with Mr. Fukuoka and helped publish his books in the United States, presents these comparisons to show what natural farming is and what it is not.
The following excerpt is from A revolutionary with one straw by Larry Korn. It has been adapted for operate on the Internet.
Permaculture has several characteristics that distinguish it from basic organic farming.
It emphasizes the interconnectedness of life, is primarily a no-till system, emphasizes tree crops and perennial plants, and integrates food and shelter production with social, economic, and political aspects of society. In many ways this is an improvement on basic organic techniques. However, upon careful analysis it becomes clear that permaculture is also a product of our newfangled way of thinking and is therefore not a complete break from other forms of newfangled agriculture.
The design process begins with careful observation of the patterns and interconnections found in nature. Then, in a process sometimes called biomimicry, the designer mimics these patterns in the design. The practice of “observing nature,” however, presupposes an observer and something that is observed. Separation from nature is built into the process from the beginning, and the result is the impression of nature created by the designer.
The next step in the design process is the analysis of elements and functions. Each element – say a pear tree, a chicken or a building – is examined and cataloged according to its needs and what it will provide to the other elements. That’s basically what science does. Nature, an indivisible whole, is broken into individual parts, analyzed, and then an attempt is made to put it back together. The reconstructed “whole” becomes a human invention, a simulation.
Finally, after all the information has been collected and assessed, the final design is created. The designer is the creator and ultimately the manager. Although the inspiration originally came from observing nature, the design is the work of human intellect. The designer has full control. I emphasized this word because it is perhaps the most distinctive feature of contemporary culture.
Thus, permaculture is based on the commonly shared beliefs and values of contemporary culture. It accepts man’s alienation from nature without objection, or perhaps even without notice; analyzes the whole as pieces; then tries to reconnect them. It relies on human intellect at every step. There are many wonderful things about human consciousness, but it can never understand a reality that is inherently unknowable. The permaculture saying previously quoted that “the possibilities in a permaculture design are constrained only by the designer’s imagination” is intended to suggest that the possibilities are endless, but it also reveals a proud, excessive faith in human capabilities. Why would anyone want to limit possibilities to something as narrow and imperfect as the human mind?
Relying on intellect takes permaculture beyond the realm of natural agriculture. For example, most permaculturists wouldn’t be opposed to spraying plants with compost tea or using exotic soil amendments if it made the plants grow faster and produce higher yields. Using ultraviolet lamps is fine as long as they are powered by solar panels or a pedal-powered generator. They visit the natural ecosystem of a pond in a forest meadow and decide to recreate something like this in their project. The result is a technologically advanced aquaponics system using PVC pipes, pumps, bubblers, solar collectors and a digital clock. It is nothing like what the designers first observed, or anything you might see while walking in the forest.
Permaculture also relies heavily on scientific information and research. The assumption is that if we collect enough information and analyze it using basic design principles, we will eventually be able to choose the best solution. David Holmgren, co-founder of permaculture, explains: “Established farming was labor-intensive, industrial farming is energy-intensive, and systems designed by permaculture require a lot of information and design.”
Some supporters would like to see permaculture include more spirituality in its curriculum. Others believe that only provable and observable science should be allowed and that “flaky metaphysics” should be cleansed. Mollison himself holds this position. In his book Travels in dreamsMollison writes: “Since I have often been accused of lacking the set of credulities, hoaxes, newfangled myths and nonsense that today pass for Up-to-date Age spirituality, I happily plead guilty… permaculture is not biodynamic, nor does it deal with fairies, divas, elves, afterlife apparitions, or phenomena that cannot be verified by each individual through their own experience or own experiments.
The second camp believes that the world is more than just observable phenomena, that permaculture does not explicitly prohibit combining it with other disciplinesand that practices such as yoga, shamanism, and astrology have undergone scientific research. I attended one course in which the instructor discussed his relationship with the fairies he encountered in his garden and elsewhere. When asked if he actually believed in fairies, he replied: “I do. Whether they’re real or not… who knows? All I know is that they’re real to me. They’ve made my life richer and more enjoyable, and they’ve allowed me to practice permaculture more effectively than I otherwise would have been able to.”
Some proponents believe that permaculture can change the direction of newfangled society, somehow tipping the mainstream onto a healthier path, but I am skeptical that any part of our society can do this if they adopt the same basic assumptions as the culture they hope to change. They will eventually be mainstreamed again as people return to familiar ways of thinking and acting that have been ingrained since childhood.
When permaculture first came to the United States, it was presented as a decentralized, grassroots movement. It had an egalitarian, tribal feel to it that was quite appealing. However, the trend now is towards a more structured organization with a central “institute” and panel of experts to regulate more strict standards of curriculum and certification. These efforts are largely promoted by those who believe that working in universities, government agencies, and other mainstream organizations will enable them to reach a wider audience.
They believe that if permaculture were more professional, it would become more acceptable in the eyes of these institutions. This is actually the first step towards becoming these institutions. A more organized organization leads to more centralized control, and with it the inevitable struggle to gain and maintain the advantage. To avoid this, permaculture just needs to stay true to its egalitarian, decentralized roots. This means building robust, resilient, local cooperative communities beyond the stifling influence of orthodoxy.
While I have pointed out what I consider to be shortcomings in the permaculture approach, I am not saying that permaculture has not had a positive impact. It has. Over the last forty years, millions of trees have been planted that otherwise would not have been planted. Skills such as collecting seeds, preserving food, natural architecture and construction, growing and using medicinal plants, foraging for wild plants, and using appropriate technologies effectively have been reintroduced, helping to protect valuable knowledge and resources. Cooperative permaculture communities have grown around the world, providing many people with the opportunity to connect with the natural world, perhaps for the first time. However, I believe this should only be seen as an input and not an end in itself.
Ultimately, permaculture must also be abandoned in favor of a broader vision in which serving nature is the highest priority. If nature is the perfect model, why not let it design it?