Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Environmental sustainability possible within a generation???
> the attachment to money vs. the attachment to not having money (bothI am not talking about the attachement or non attachment to money as a
> dictated by the action for or reaction against attachment to money,
> i do go the bible on this "The love of(attachment to) money is the
> root of all evil" not 'money is the root of all evil' - pls at least
> consider jean-claude),
source of a problem but money itself as an inapropriate means to satisfy
it is like trying to hit a nail with a rake or some other inapropriate
tool.( like a plow to aerate the soil )
IT is not question of being attached or not to any quantity of it but it is
about removing peoples from the direct experience that occur in the
circulation of energy.
That is what is wrong with this concept of trying to symbolise, quantify
circulation of energy ..
it is like replacing by words the direct experience of observing something .
Also and on top of that Nowhere in nature there is this idea <i give you
that if you give me this > or any idea of storing beyond needs in case ...
at last there is , even more so , the artificial regulation of the
circulation of energy symbolised by money organised by the banking and
financial system .That is nothing less that a very brutal way of depriving
peoples from the possibility of satisfying their needs in a direct , real
- Thanks so much fellahs for the energy of your writings,
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments,
Jean-claude, i agree with your oh so clear articulation of the
corrupting limitation of money as a system of exchange (have i got
this description right jean-claude?), my sentiment overlaps in
meaning with that but is not identical with it. I don't care about
money as something to be for or as something to fight against, i
think fighting this would waste my energy, not that you, jean-claude
are necessarily fighting against it when you're writing accurately
descriptive and explanatory words. Paper/Plastic money, is just
paper to me, it just represents something that it could be but is as
useful on its own as a bit of bark of a tree. Metal money, is just a
lump of metal to me,it just represents something that it could be
but is as useful on its own as a sinker for fishing line. It's the
concept of money in some (so many) people's heads that Jean-claude
describes so well that i reject.
Thanks, my reading of Fukuoka-sensei books and so on, emphasises to
me that we are not of topic at all here, according to the way
Fukuoka himself and Stephen Canner define Fukuoka_Farming. It is
quite fruitful what you & Jean-claude are talking about, - reading
of 4 English translation books and one Japanese book. See the
following messages in the archive for listings of books everyone
(from my offline archive) "Michiyo & Kyle's booklist FF msg no's:
1019 1286 2325 2338 & even more important related 2374 2384 2385
2386 2389 2876" & ( http://www.infomadonna.ne.jp/~ham/book.htm ). So
don't worry about being off topic with this thread, please continue
with this thread if you want to, tiredness and not being outside in
the field is a different topic and from that we are maybe off the
topic of not being out in our fields. Your a lucky man with your
wife and place in Tassie. I'll contact you by email with
`Aboriginal` intellectual nature information property links which i
have a little incumbancy to privately return to respective people,
and to share more personal dialogue that i don't make public with
--- In email@example.com, "Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude
Catry" <instinct@s...> wrote:
>[animaphile - jason - wrote]
> > the attachment to money vs. the attachment to not having money(both dictated by the action for or reaction against attachment to
money, i do go the bible on this "The love of(attachment to) money
is the root of all evil" not 'money is the root of all evil' - pls
at least consider jean-claude),
>as a source of a problem but money itself as an inapropriate means
> I am not talking about the attachement or non attachment to money
to satisfy needs .
> it is like trying to hit a nail with a rake or some otherinapropriate tool.( like a plow to aerate the soil )
> IT is not question of being attached or not to any quantity of itbut it is about removing peoples from the direct experience that
occur in the circulation of energy.
> That is what is wrong with this concept of trying to symbolise,quantify circulation of energy ..
> it is like replacing by words the direct experience of observingsomething .
>give you that if you give me this > or any idea of storing beyond
> Also and on top of that Nowhere in nature there is this idea <i
needs in case ...
>circulation of energy symbolised by money organised by the banking
> at last there is , even more so , the artificial regulation of the
and financial system .That is nothing less that a very brutal way of
depriving peoples from the possibility of satisfying their needs in
a direct , real way ...
> jean-claude--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Adam Carter <accarter@i...>
> Hi Jason,seem to have gone far off topic from this mailing list so I think it
> Thanks for the time you have taken on this subject. However we
is probably best we leave this thread for now. Otherwise we could be
spending the rest of our lives going backward and forwards on this
>my perspectives we're formed independently of that fact.
> For the record, my wife is aboriginal. Although I'll also add that
> Like you, I have been on a long journey to arrive at where I am
> While we have arrived at different destinations, there is stillmuch we have in common.
> Towards a better world,
- --- In email@example.com, "Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude
Catry" <instinct@s...> wrote:
>people from the reality (and urgency) of the situation. To be
> [quoted Adam Carter wrote:]
> > Hi Jason,
> > In my opinion this is simply more false hope that distracts
sustainable indefinitely a culture must not take more from its
environment than it returns. Stone age technology is sustainable,
anything beyond that is not sustainable. Sure, there are ways and
means to be more sustainable than we are now but that is not the
same as being sustainable.
> >sums it up quite nicely, http://www.derrickjensen.org/ga.html
> > Please have a read of a small article by Derrick Jensen that
>toward this level of sustainiblity.... but not alone .
> i am also thinking that way , and am ready myself to do the move
Yes! Yes!, for me not alone -even not just one family alone, is such
a neccessary point. Only as a society can it - practice, in my
perception actually become sustainable (sustainable meaning that it
continues to occur aswell as meaning that it continues not to do any
unsustainable practices), it is necessary to make personal decisions
to be sustainable all the time through one's life, but to continue
personally one needs a conducive society aswell in the long/medium
term of many decades. So many people have done it individually or
personally in adverse societies but have become burn't out, i feel
real compassion and concern for them doing it alone, so i think and
i myself partly successfully practice influencing my communities in
East Gippsland, Melbourne & Sydney to be more informed and
sympathetic and practice themselves sustainability of the kind that
Fukuoka points so clearly to. Not preaching is what i really try
hard to do, even though communicating in a firm tone with my
communities, i realise that often many of these people got their
ideas that maintain their unsustainabilty from what they've read and
heard in the media, so i often provide debunking media, books and
radio and TV and newspapers to them, i have succeeded in some
spinning-back the spin-out ideas of how to use human-ignited fire
here and some reduction of peoples cultural cringe towards
indigenous people's foods (called bush tucker or bushfood). It's not
easy but is incidently socially very rewarding. Some seriously
unsustainable people are very friendly toward me.
> yet david suzuki goals that are more geared toward reducingdrastically pollutions than sustainibility is really achievable in
principal but one main obstacle is the artificiality of money
economy orchestrated by banks and other wall street type of wealth
maker that in no way represent the real exchange of energies ...
i agree so true.
> little farmers knows that ,they don't have a chance to berecognised for their performances into making more out of less.
i agree so very true.
> considering that the sun is constantly bombarding the earth , it iscreation is there to prove it )in opposition with other forms of
> completelly possible to produce more energy than is used up (
farming that require more or less a deficit between what is produced
and and what is spent.( mechanical ,chemical , monocultured and
centralised agriculture being the worst .)
i agree, good ?new insight for records on group.
> David suzuki is a yuppi confortable kind of guy who are notwilling to go to stone age technology even if it is what it takes
to be really sustainable ( too bad he miss the opportunity to knows
the comfort that comes from being willing to risk uncomfort ....
so great a point, thank you
- Why you all fight, when all want same thing -- be bigger than the other.
That not-natural. Money, only expression non-natural want to have more than
need. When non-natural wishes fall, money non-useful. Earth beautiful
again. Too much in your heads, not-natural.
Use wise words of other people� but use them wisely? You have to go look
for your hearts in yourself, first. Natural?: eat, drink, piss, sleep� just
enough for natural necessities. Can you be happy with that? If not need
money, destroy Earth! The point of natural life, the perfection of spirit -
>From: "animaphile" <animaphile@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Environmental sustainability possible within
>Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:45:19 -0000
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Adam Carter <accarter@i...>
> > Hi Jason,
> > I appreciate your detailed response.
>You've come from Melbourne recently.
>I grew up in SE of Melbourne, did years of, all my life,
>participating in nature there, learn't all species of plants, both
>indig and introduced, 1500+, 600+ indig sp., most animals... great
>place for me, but i'm not a sympathiser of some people i know there
>who talk about overthrowing the city culture, i'm not a greeny-nazi,
>i couldn't and wouldn't want to destroy the people who live there or
>force them in any way, this would be so counter to compassion and to
>bringing up & out the good nature that is the underlying base of
>human nature. Even though the destruction of non-human nature there
>that i love all my life is/was so severe and pernicious. My
>experiences there were heartbreaking, many times many bushlands were
>needlessly and/or wantonly harmed in a sado-masochistic or merchant
>of death dealing way. Still good bush aswell and regeneration going
> > Just a couple of things I'd like to elaborate on. If one perceives
>that the foundations of civilisation are rotten, then no amount
>of 'reform' is going to make a difference in the long run. There are
>increasing numbers of people who hold such perspectives. These
>people have not given up hope, it is just that their hopes are not
>confined to a civilised outlook.
>I agree with the intention or sentiment but the wording
>of 'foundations of civilisation are rotten' is rotten if anything
>is, if throwing out this word then really you need to change
>languages and throw out the english language also. Do you speak a
>different language from English? Japanese and Indig' languages of
>this continent are liberating examples, would you learn a Palawa
>What have you learn't about Indigenous people's of this continent so
>far, as from your posts you imply that you are an originally non-
>indig' person, hope i'm not wrong in this reading of your posts.
>Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre/Corporation is very worthwhile.
> > Instead of being directed at reform, their energies are directed
>in many different directions.
> > Towards creating alternative means of subsistence and learning
>There's nothing primitive about primitives - know wha' a mean?
>I don't believe in alternatives or mainstreams, primitive or modern
>they both define themselves by what they are opposed to or what they
>are supposed not to be. Bring on at once becoming Eternal and MU!
> >Towards defending remaining wild places.
>Regenerating is better again and doesn't sow the seed of its own
>conflict as defensiveness does.
> >Towards undermining civilisation itself.
>No need to undermine civilisation, just build a real one rather than
>pretend, false one, eg. Indigenous civilisations, peoples, societies
>of this continent. Jamie & Gloria's one's for Europe. etc.
> > Towards supporting surviving indigenous life ways.
>Sorry to be feeling like an editor of your wording, i don't really
>presume to be an editor, rather it is continuing my detailed
>response, because i am absolutely convinced that there is no benefit
>in taking sides for anyone, you, me, or George W. Bush, Saddam, the
>spooks in the intelligence agencies or even Satan.
> > I can strongly recommend the books by Derrick Jensen
>(especially 'A Language Older than Words' and 'Culture of Make
>Believe'), Chellis Glendinning ('My name is Chellis and I'm in
>recovery from Western Civilisation' and 'Off the Map') and Daniel
>Quinn ('Ishmael') to name a few of the growing number of critiques
>of civilisation itself. While I'm on the subject of books, look out
>for 'The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial
>Societies' by Richard Heinberg not only does this give comprehensive
>analysis of the coming end of oil but it also debunks the myths of
>the 'sustainable' alternatives.
>Thanks it's the thought of yours that counts, i actually just had a
>thorough read of all the write-ups of books on his website, and
>after my own personal upbringing experiences i can say that i'm
>beyond the life-phase of dealing with my parental families problems.
>I've received alot of heart from indig' people's and different
>people's including takusan Nihonjin (many japanese people) and
>shared alot too, that has taken me beyond civilisation vs.
>primitive, western vs. eastern, white vs. black, asian vs. european,
>christian vs. 'other' than christian, eastern or japanese or
>aboriginal christian vs. western christian, secular vs. non-secular,
>materialistic vs. spiritual, man vs. woman, history vs. herstory,
>linear thinking vs. lateral thinking vs. multidimensional thinking,
>left brain vs. right brain, deep vs. shallow ecology (i've read
>literally a 1000 or more ecology science papers, not incl. books
>versus hundreds of (so called) deep ecology literatures, not to
>mention dialogues with people, etc.), greeny vs. browny vs. redneck,
>the attachment to money vs. the attachment to not having money (both
>dictated by the action for or reaction against attachment to money,
>i do go the bible on this "The love of(attachment to) money is the
>root of all evil" not 'money is the root of all evil' - pls at least
>consider jean-claude), technocracy vs. luddism (technology was and
>is never the issue, people are the issue and their societies and
>choices made by people & societies about technology ie. attachment
>to for or against technology), paleao (lithic) vs. neo (lithic)
>(words mean literally old vs. new rocks - old stones vs. new
>stones), good vs. bad, attached-to-science vs. against-science vs.
>sucker-for-psuedo-science (all still dictated in mode of thinking by
>science, whether for or against or hoodwinked by), etc.
>There is an important section in Fukuoka's "Ultimatum of God
>Nature..." ("KAMI TO SHIZEN TO HITO NO KAKUMEI...") where he
>describes and discusses "Men who kill God", it is especially
>important for us men who have come from societies that have been
>dominated by nature destructive ideologies. The use of the word
>civilisation can be a very good meaning, furthermore it can be
>reclaimed by secure type people away from any destructive meanings
>to mean humane, civil, a citizen of God Nature, etc. There no reason
>to be a word-fashion-victim for Jensen or anyone, we make the
>language, not at the mercy of it, as we make the future every
>present moment! Does any of the writing above directly address
>Hawkins & Lovins "Natural Capitalism" i like to extract the
>happening empirical info out of that publ., it is spontaneous, up to
>date-ish more than most and edifying. I don't like it when anyone
>diminishes faith in human nature or any nature, there's nothing
>wrong with nature, there is some things wrong with some stuff in
>some poeple's heads not the least of which is us brought up in
>materialist, secular-christian, stratified, babylon-system...
>societies. But it is all only `in people's heads`. To paraphrase Tim
>Peters, if your yardstick or guidebook of life be wrong or you ask
>the wrong question then you have f..k all hope of getting the right
>answer or any answer. Bring on MU!
> > You wondered at how someone using electricity can write
>meaningfully about returning to the 'stone age', but we do not have
>to wonder what it was like 10,000 years ago.
>I'd like you to explore that inconsitency some more that i
>mentioned, about myself and us, and whoever.
> >Less than 250 years ago the entire continent that you and I live on
>was living quite happily and sustainably with stone tools.
>But it wasn't BECAUSE of stone tools that they were/are happy or
>sustainable 250 years ago or today, that is the very materialistic
>(european if we like that word for a convention of assumed meaning)
>obsession with materials and technological determinisms, and also
>archaeologies largely dependence upon material artefacts, and
>whitefellah's societies, up till recently at least, reliance on
>archaeology as their abriter of truth about indigenous peoples of
>this continent. When really archaeology can only be misleading
>compared to simply directly asking to teach their civilisation
>& 'culture' & customs & spirituality. To emphasise indig' peoples of
>this continents' pre-eminence in religion/spirituality, society,
>kinship and social systems more than just & in addition to their
>tool technologies is more in keeping with what apparently makes my
>indig' friends today happy about themselves, and more about the
>strengths of their societies and cultures in being sustainable.
>Have you read David Horton's book "The Pure State of Nature" it is
>better than nothing, but like everything partial. He's an
>archaeologist, sheep farmer and was editor of the Encyclopedia of
>Aboriginal Australia. He debunks many of the lies & underestimations
>by whitefellahs about Indig' peoples of this continent, but then
>introduces a few underestimations of his own, ie. he debunks
>different whitefella's partialities and then projects his own
>partialities from the specialisation of archaeology and especially
>simplistic underestimations about indig' farming (Fukuoka-defined
>farming) which is understandable & expectable given his emotional
>investment in his own sheep farm. I've read the anthropology paper,
>and many more of them, (Haynes & Chase, "Plant sites and
>domiculture") that he criticises about Oz Indig' farming in Cape
>York, and it is so obvious that they planted seeds there for food
>plants that for Horton to refuse to accept this is an absurd, even
>racist in a partial about-farming-or-horticulture-way,
>underestimating of Indig' people's of this continent. Even my local
>community indig friends have told me 'on the quiet' that
>transporting & planting native seeds for food is natural thing for
>them, their ancestors and their particular customs of their S.E. Oz
>Nonetheless, while being wary of it limitations, it is a very
>worthwhile, important reading for the world to read about Oz. It is
>a good book to give to all those neighbours who you said thought or
>called you mad in what you're doing on farm. This is exactly what
>i've done here with success in gaining mutual understanding with my
>neighbours and their & my mutual joy. No madness accussations. It is
>even available as an Adobe ebook (ebooks.com) for US$7.95, normally
>AUD$30+ on paper.
>I'd also suggest for reading as first suggestions from me: Larissa
>Behrendt "Aboriginal Dispute Resolution". An Indig' young woman from
>SE Oz, a highly qualified lawyer, spokesperson on TV, etc. I've
>learn't profound lessons on how to live my own whitefellah life
>better from Larissa Behrendt, as she reccommends in that book. Did
>you read some of my earlier quotes and links about indig peoples,
>such as Eve Fesl's book "Conned" that i quoted the intro from.
>And "Ancestor Spirits", and Koorie Plants Koorie People, this would
>be a No. 1 book for you to get, in my humble opinion
>There are many native nitrogen fixers that would be the equal of
>clover in Oz, not that clover is bad in Oz, it is fairly harmless,
>not much weedy, but that can't be said for the changes it makes in
>the micro-organisms in Oz particularly, because we have our own
>unique sets of Oz micro-organisms with our plant species, to be
>clear it is not an either or choice though, just be careful and wary
>with clover - soil - micro-organisms in Oz, and as Fukuoka advises
>don't do anything at all that's unneccessary. She-oaks (Casuarina &
>Allocasuarina) are nitrogen fixers also to legumes and wattles.
>Murnong root vegetable grows in Tassie. It may be a threatened
>species like the Camas root vegetable in Canada that Stephen Inniss
>mentioned many moons ago as threatened and depleted around his
>town, - the solution rather than just the problem identification
>with this is to get in good terms with the Botanists, Jamie
>Kirkpatrick is a great one is Tassie, and help to grow this murnong
>on your place as an re-dispersal and regeneration of its former
>range if it is at all possible to grow on your place. Very good
>taste root raw or cooked. Could be a double good one for you Adam.
>Desmodium are one of many native legume genera around in Oz.
> > Cheers,
> > Adam.
> > PS. Jason, thanks for the recommendation of Tim Low's Wild Herbs
>book, I've ordered it today.
>See Ya, Jyaa-ne
Choose now from 4 levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - no more account
- --- In email@example.com, "Gerald Whitehawk"
> Why you all fight, when all want same thing -- be bigger than the
> That not-natural. Money, only expression non-natural want to havemore than
> need. When non-natural wishes fall, money non-useful. Earthbeautiful
> again. Too much in your heads, not-natural.go look
> Use wise words of other people but use them wisely? You have to
> for your hearts in yourself, first. Natural?: eat, drink, piss,sleep just
> enough for natural necessities. Can you be happy with that? Ifnot need
> money, destroy Earth! The point of natural life, the perfectionof spirit -
> loosing ego.Thankyou
Beauty mate (Australian English similar to thank you)
Arigato gozaimasu (Japanese thank you)
I Agree including for myself.