See HERE for the provisional contents page of the study,
which gives you a proper chronology of sections.
Note: the content below is all in first draft format. It will change considerably during the time it takes for the study to be completed (especially by way of more academic support, generally). I post now ‘for interest’s sake’.
- Use small and slow solutions
The Permaculture Association begins its commentary on this principle by pointing out that “systems should be designed to function at the smallest scale that is practical and energy efficient (rather than the biggest). In some ways this is a value judgement. Permaculture favours small scale and local, over big scale and global. Usually.” Issues with ‘one-size-fits-all’, large-scale industrial agriculture were explored in Chapter 1; Mollison (1988: 11) alludes to some of those issues when he says that every “widespread modern agricultural system needs great energy inputs; most agriculture destroys basic resources and denies future yields.” By localising food production into gardens, communities, neighbourhoods, and settlements in general, numerous small organic gardens that are free from the ‘need’ for industrial chemicals can replace the ecologically-damaging large monocrops that now constitute the vast majority of the world’s food supply.
Slowing down in the context of permaculture allows time for various principles already commented upon to be implemented. For example, a slow approach to the establishment of a homestead, food garden, or settlement, will allow one to spend time observing (principle one) the given area, its fauna and flora, its interdependencies, the flow of energy through the area, etc.; will allow one gradually to integrate different means of catching and storing energy (principle two); will allow for ‘by products’ (i.e. wastes) to be processed (principle six) and gradually incorporated as fertility into the system; etc. This slow approach is one that stands in sharp contrast to the ‘slash-and-burn’ approach employed in industrial agriculture, which involves clearing a natural area of trees and life immediately for large monocrop output and maximum financial profit in a minimum of time. This Promethean approach is one that quickly destroys ecosystems by immediately wiping out all that previously lived in the area and by applying fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to the land, while the permaculture approach that values smallness and slowness gradually strengthens ecosystems by increasing biodiversity, optimising moisture retention, creating organic fertility, etc. Mollison (1988: 53) provides some simple practical guidance on how to keep the implementation of such a permaculture system small and slow: the “golden rule is to develop the nearest area first, get it under control, and expand the perimeter. A single perimeter will then enclose all your needs.” Each permaculture action within the perimeter can also be chosen wisely for the optimisation of the components of the permaculture system: “Make the least change for the greatest possible effect” (Mollison 1988: 35).
An important feature of small and slow solutions is that, being small and slow, they are within the reach of the average person. The average person is generally dependant on ACID’s large-scale systems, systems that via numerous means are perpetuated whether the average person likes them or not – see Chapter 4 for information pertaining to selected perpetuation mechanisms. If one is caught up in consumer lifestyle where s/he has very few realistic options but to compete in the job market to pay for the necessities of life, it is unlikely that s/he can make big and quick changes to her or his life due to constraints of time, money, energy, etc. However, the small and slow implementation of changes to people’s lives allows them gradually to make steps towards a compost system, a food garden, water catchment and storage systems, grey water systems, alternative energy sources, etc. These small changes that are made gradually eventually add up, and eventually some level of self-suffi