Permaculture Ethics, Difficult to Define

The ethical basis of Permaculture is stated in Bill Mollison's book Permaculture: a Designer's Manual and most Permies tend to universally agree with the first two, it's always the third that seems to be the bone of contention.

What is it about the third ethic that makes it so difficult to define? Isn't it about time we all came to a consenus on what our ethics actually are? Should we stick with the original below or go for "fair share" or "care for the future" or some other variation instead?

Mollison's original ethics:

1. Care of the Earth - Provision for all life systems to continue and multiply.
2. Care of People - Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence.
3. Setting Limits to Population and Consumption - By governing our own needs, we can set resources aside to further the above principles.

We have seen how population control has failed, and the capricious hold on resources that the corporations have these days. I see the need to strategize a staged transition with permaculture values. Transform routine consumption behaviors over time.

This is a bottom-up process?

Willi

Population problems arise from mismanagement not only of resources, but regulation (self and public) of sinful activities.

When a societal aim is towards material comfort and sense gratification (e.g. capitalism), inevitably, that society will act incongruently with the laws of nature. Sin is any activity against the interests of Sustainability. Therefore, eating only on the basis of sense gratification is against the interests of Sustainability. Further, unregulated sexual sense gratification inevitably results in population problems and produces generally sensually-inclined offspring; thus, a continuation of the problem.

A principle of population control is no different than the corporate policy of layoffs when resources run short due to avaricious behavior and policies.

Traditional cultures throughout the world have always had social devices in place to limit their populations and consumption of local resources to sustainable levels. This is the way I interpret Bill's original 3rd ethic, what's your take on it Willi, would you prefer it to be "fair share" or "care of the future" instead?

For over a year now I have elevated the importance of the Sacred in this transition. Without a new, Nature-based universal practice of the Sacred, humans will exhaust their resources and be extinct shortly nor matter the permie dogma or religious hypocrisy of the day.

I'm sure everyone would agree the world of Permaculture is a richer place because of your ongoing dedicated work Willi and most of us, are all too aware of our current global situation. However the idea for this topic was to discuss the differing definitions of the 3rd Permaculture ethic, bounce some ideas around, to get a feel for what people think. Should we stick to the original or attempt to find consensus on a more phonetically pleasing and concise variation?

I think that maybe a good number of people aren't comfortable with the idea of setting limts to population and consumption, (including those into permaculture) because it reflects directly on our own habits, breeding and otherwise. Bills third ethic means taking responsibility for the size of our own families and what they consume. Fair share and care for the future are vague enough to be left up to interpretation. The original ethic leaves the bottom line with us!

Namaste

Thanks for the reality check! I like the original ethic as it is.

I kinda like care for the future, setting limits to population and consumption sounds too long

"Fair Share" has a really open meaning, which can be + and -.

This planet can support many more times the current population, if we spread out a but and use her resources in a circular way, so I'm firmly against limiting population (It's impossible anyway!)

Applying the "Fair Share" ethic to all aspects of our lives would have a far greater impact than simply trying to restrict population.

For example, in businesses, people could apply the fair share ethic to create a sustainable social enterprise, and we could remove the thirst for 'growth' in the economy and replace it with 'prosperity' under the "People Care" ethic.

So much more subject matter is applicable to "Fair Share".

It also applies to NOW rather than mentioning the 'future'.

Oh, and it ryhmes with the others :P

Namaste Entropea
As PM mentioned earlier, almost all traditional cultures had a range of social taboos in place in order to limit their populations. They did this so as not to burn out their resources and destroy their environment. I would say it makes it pretty clear where we've gone wrong by not setting limits to our own un-controllable growth.
Can I ask you Entropea, do you have children? If not, do you plan one day to have them and if so how many would you like to have?

At first I really didn't see the problem with the 3rd ethic. I think because I was looking at it more, as a personal responsibility, rather than a "law" to be imposed on others. But, then, reading it a few times, I began to see the concern...population control and rationing....hmmm. Maybe, the 3rd ethic should be aimed at a more personal commitment to reducing consumption and reproduction. After all, rearing children is the only thing that does not get easier the more times you do it....

Hi Mariposa, welcome to the forum, great to have you here. :) I think youre totally right, its really about a personal commitment.

Sally