Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

About wineberry-rubus

Expand Messages
  • mentha_man
    I am wondering if wine berry is really invasive. I found some years ago by a river near my apt and it never came back. In addition it is classified as a
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I am wondering if wine berry is really invasive. I found some years ago by a river near my apt and it never came back. In addition it is classified as a raspberry which are not particularly invasive compared to say a blackberry.

      I would like to grow them and sell them but the idea of them being invasive might turn away buyers.

      I am fascinated too by the possibility of the wine berry being carnivorous. If this is true could it be contributing to the flavor of the fruit? The full name is Rubus phoenicolasius. Thank you.

      Adam
    • Steve
      Hi Adam, On the subject of invasives (and to provide a perspecive to balance out the typical fear-of-the-invader view), I recommend Invasion Biology:
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Adam,

        On the subject of invasives (and to provide a perspecive to balance out the
        typical "fear-of-the-invader" view), I recommend "Invasion Biology: Critique
        Of A Pseudoscience," by David Theodoropoulos.

        It's available through Horizon Herbs, a great herb seed farm in Oregon, USA
        (among other places, I'm sure).

        Peace,

        Steve.

        --
        "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."

        - Thomas Jefferson


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ryborgryborg268
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          ...some Native Americans would say that you are an 'invasive biology', bud!

          --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, Steve <permalove@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Adam,
          >
          > On the subject of invasives (and to provide a perspecive to balance out the
          > typical "fear-of-the-invader" view), I recommend "Invasion Biology: Critique
          > Of A Pseudoscience," by David Theodoropoulos.
          >
          > It's available through Horizon Herbs, a great herb seed farm in Oregon, USA
          > (among other places, I'm sure).
          >
          > Peace,
          >
          > Steve.
          >
          > --
          > "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
          >
          > - Thomas Jefferson
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Griselda Mussett
          Bravo! Griselda ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Bravo!
            Griselda

            On 18 Jun 2009, at 20:32, D wrote:

            >
            >
            > Hi friends,
            >
            > I recommend that people have a look at the number of threatened
            > species
            > and vegetation communities, and the type of threatening processes that
            > besiege them.
            > Invasive species are right up there with habitat loss.
            >
            > Herbs may not seem as threatening as invasive tree species, however,
            > but my experience of working in the arena of invasive species
            > management is:
            > 1.In existing reasonably healthy ecosystems, there is an ecological
            > niche that is already occupied by an endemic species,
            > 2. Every invasive species needs a habitat niche to occupy,
            > 3. Therefore invasive species must often compete for available niches.
            > Many invasives are very successful at this: as such, they are not
            > always
            > very benign in terms of their environmental impact.
            > It is similar to animal biology really.....which species is the most
            > dominant?.
            >
            > There is nothing wrong with using species which have a propensity to
            > expand their range, if you think you can keep up with the demand on
            > your
            > time and energy to monitor it,
            > and practice often time-consuming integrated management (more
            > laborious
            > when you don't use the liquid chemical kosh as many permacultists do).
            >
            > However, the environment you live in may be so biodiverse and
            > therefore
            > valuable, that to risk damage via indiscriminate use of invasives
            > cannot
            > be justified.
            >
            > If you have a choice between a non-invasive (food etc.) plant and an
            > invasive plant that perform the same services, you would be scrambling
            > to justify the inclusion of the invasive.
            > Applying the precautionary principle, a wise person would choose the
            > benign alternative.
            > Is your permaculture design an exercise in best practice land
            > management, or a random -if unintentional- experiment in species
            > acclimatiisation per se?
            > If so, you risk being partly responsible for the globalisation of
            > plants, which if carried to its logical conclusion wil see a overall
            > worldwide reduction in the number of plant and animal species.
            > It is difficult to mount a very convincing or scientific argument for
            > such an outcome, however it is arrived at.
            >
            > Permacultists sometimes seem to believe that they should accumulate
            > every edible species in the known universe. That's a lot of
            > species, and
            > a lot of vegetation to manage.
            > (In Australia alone, there are about 35,000 endemic plants native to
            > Australia, about 5,000 of which are known to be food plants used by
            > indigenous peoples).
            > Integrated weed control involves a lot of observation about the life
            > cycles of individual invasives, the better to manage the threats they
            > pose without destroying the whole environment,
            > not to mention loading it up with residual toxic chemicals.
            >
            > Permacultists can avoid a lot of that work by simply making wiser and
            > more appropriate choices.
            > It's no use arguing against use of harmful herbicides if you yourself
            > are deliberately a rampant weed spreader.
            > If Permaculturists are honest with themselves and each other, they
            > will
            > often admit to making such mistakes with species selection, and having
            > to undertake remedial action on their own properties to avoid them
            > being
            > taken over by dominant imports. Sometimes they even take
            > responsibility
            > and undertake control work where a plant or animal has escaped beyond
            > their personal property boundary.
            >
            > And sometimes they adopt a lasse faire attitude like 'let nature take
            > care of it'. Most stone age peoples have a more intelligent
            > comprehension of ecology that this!
            > Ask indigenous peoples what they think of particular weed species:
            > their
            > common sense perceptions will often surprise you.
            > They use the term 'rubbish plant' a lot; if a plant or animal is in
            > any
            > way valuable, they will acknowledge it!
            > Europeans are not the best example of a race of humans that live in
            > close proximity to nature, and not usually very good at measuring
            > ecological changes (been in cities too long)..
            >
            > I think we are all coming to realise that the collective we have given
            > nature more than enough grief to deal with right now. More ecological
            > disruption is not better.
            > I think we humans should also realise that given certain threatening
            > processes that we seem unable or unwilling to deal with, humans may
            > not
            > always feature prominently on the skin of this earth.
            > It therefore follows that species that we deem to be of immediate and
            > direct benefit to us may not be that significant in the scheme of
            > future
            > things.
            >
            > Cheers
            > D
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > Hi Adam,
            > >
            > > On the subject of invasives (and to provide a perspecive to balance
            > > out the
            > > typical "fear-of-the-invader" view), I recommend "Invasion Biology:
            > > Critique
            > > Of A Pseudoscience," by David Theodoropoulos.
            > >
            > > It's available through Horizon Herbs, a great herb seed farm in
            > > Oregon, USA
            > > (among other places, I'm sure).
            > >
            > > Peace,
            > >
            > > Steve.
            > >
            > > --
            > > "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large
            > military force."
            > >
            > > - Thomas Jefferson
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • matthew@b-and-t-world-seeds.com
            In principle I agree, but not everyone lives in a rich, natural, diverse environment. Deserts, real deserts as well as man made deserts, such as cities and
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              In principle I agree, but not everyone lives in a rich, natural, diverse environment.

              Deserts, real deserts as well as man made deserts, such as cities and monoculture agricultural factory farming regions, do need diversity.

              In some places diversity is already there in copses and hedgerows and needs extra special preservation. But where there is no nature, diversity is desirable and may need to start with quite robust pioneer plants.

              (Even then, a little encouragement may show a surprising natural diversity waiting for agreeable conditions to start repopulating - nature is amazingly resilient !)

              Matt

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: griselda1@...
              To: pfaf@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: 6/18/09 3:32 AM
              Subject: Re: [pfaf] About wineberry-rubus

              Bravo!
              Griselda



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Griselda Mussett
              Fair enough. I was thinking mostly of an invasion of Japanese knotweed into a garden I had - it was a frightful thing, and almost impossible to eradicate
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Fair enough.

                I was thinking mostly of an invasion of Japanese knotweed into a
                garden I had - it was a frightful thing, and almost impossible to
                eradicate without foul chemicals - and even that was uncertain I
                believe. We had to cut and cut and cut and cut... the property was
                sold before we had reduced it but I think it would have take a
                lifetime to remove it that way, it went so far and so deep.

                Griselda


                On 18 Jun 2009, at 11:28, matthew@... wrote:

                >
                >
                > In principle I agree, but not everyone lives in a rich, natural,
                > diverse environment.
                >
                > Deserts, real deserts as well as man made deserts, such as cities
                > and monoculture agricultural factory farming regions, do need
                > diversity.
                >
                > In some places diversity is already there in copses and hedgerows
                > and needs extra special preservation. But where there is no nature,
                > diversity is desirable and may need to start with quite robust
                > pioneer plants.
                >
                > (Even then, a little encouragement may show a surprising natural
                > diversity waiting for agreeable conditions to start repopulating -
                > nature is amazingly resilient !)
                >
                > Matt
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: griselda1@...
                > To: pfaf@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: 6/18/09 3:32 AM
                > Subject: Re: [pfaf] About wineberry-rubus
                >
                > Bravo!
                > Griselda
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >


                The news isn't that fruits and vegetables are good for you ~ it's
                that they are so good for you they could save your life.
                By David Bjerklie, TIME Magazine, October 20,
                2003
                Juice PLUS+ Capsules contain 17 fruits, vegetables, oats and grains.
                The ingredients are apples, cranberries, dates, oranges, papaya,
                peaches, pineapples, beets, broccoli, carrots, cabbage, kale,
                tomatoes, parsley, garlic, spinach, rice bran (no gluten), and oats
                (no gluten).
                and ~ NEW - Juice PLUS+ Vineyard Blend adds Blueberries, Cranberries,
                Concorde Grape, Blackberries, Bilberries, Grape Seed, Raspberry,
                Elderberries, Red Currants, and Black Currants.
                Check it out www.takejuiceplus.co.uk






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • matthew@b-and-t-world-seeds.com
                lol D yes, there is no going back. there are few, if any, real wildernesses left - the South American rainforests were slashed and farmed for 1000s of years,
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  lol D

                  yes, there is no going back.

                  there are few, if any, real wildernesses left - the South American rainforests were slashed and farmed for 1000s of years, before the Europeans arrived.

                  The garrigue in South France (where truffles grow round oaks) looks wild, but is full of terraces and walls and not so long ago was covered mainly in lime trees. Like parts of North Africa, it was goated until most of the top-soil was lost, and is expected to become Europe's next desert (no shortage of pines and olives).
                  Maybe there are odd places so inaccessible that they have never been messed with - probably even a few little canyons here on Mindanao in the Philippines, where the interior has only been occupied for a few hundred years.
                  In the North northern hemisphere, we had the ice ages, where most of the soil and vegetation was scraped away from enormous tracts of land. This grew back incredibly quickly.

                  A few hundred years ago parts of the Kalahari desert were farmed, before it was desert, and now it is desert, for a few years there were gardens.

                  I guess things change - in the past our ancestors survived by changing with the times, there are not many places left to go, and have we lost the ability to adapt ?

                  Matt


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • D
                  Hi friends, I recommend that people have a look at the number of threatened species and vegetation communities, and the type of threatening processes that
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi friends,

                    I recommend that people have a look at the number of threatened species
                    and vegetation communities, and the type of threatening processes that
                    besiege them.
                    Invasive species are right up there with habitat loss.

                    Herbs may not seem as threatening as invasive tree species, however,
                    but my experience of working in the arena of invasive species management is:
                    1.In existing reasonably healthy ecosystems, there is an ecological
                    niche that is already occupied by an endemic species,
                    2. Every invasive species needs a habitat niche to occupy,
                    3. Therefore invasive species must often compete for available niches.
                    Many invasives are very successful at this: as such, they are not always
                    very benign in terms of their environmental impact.
                    It is similar to animal biology really.....which species is the most
                    dominant?.

                    There is nothing wrong with using species which have a propensity to
                    expand their range, if you think you can keep up with the demand on your
                    time and energy to monitor it,
                    and practice often time-consuming integrated management (more laborious
                    when you don't use the liquid chemical kosh as many permacultists do).

                    However, the environment you live in may be so biodiverse and therefore
                    valuable, that to risk damage via indiscriminate use of invasives cannot
                    be justified.

                    If you have a choice between a non-invasive (food etc.) plant and an
                    invasive plant that perform the same services, you would be scrambling
                    to justify the inclusion of the invasive.
                    Applying the precautionary principle, a wise person would choose the
                    benign alternative.
                    Is your permaculture design an exercise in best practice land
                    management, or a random -if unintentional- experiment in species
                    acclimatiisation per se?
                    If so, you risk being partly responsible for the globalisation of
                    plants, which if carried to its logical conclusion wil see a overall
                    worldwide reduction in the number of plant and animal species.
                    It is difficult to mount a very convincing or scientific argument for
                    such an outcome, however it is arrived at.

                    Permacultists sometimes seem to believe that they should accumulate
                    every edible species in the known universe. That's a lot of species, and
                    a lot of vegetation to manage.
                    (In Australia alone, there are about 35,000 endemic plants native to
                    Australia, about 5,000 of which are known to be food plants used by
                    indigenous peoples).
                    Integrated weed control involves a lot of observation about the life
                    cycles of individual invasives, the better to manage the threats they
                    pose without destroying the whole environment,
                    not to mention loading it up with residual toxic chemicals.

                    Permacultists can avoid a lot of that work by simply making wiser and
                    more appropriate choices.
                    It's no use arguing against use of harmful herbicides if you yourself
                    are deliberately a rampant weed spreader.
                    If Permaculturists are honest with themselves and each other, they will
                    often admit to making such mistakes with species selection, and having
                    to undertake remedial action on their own properties to avoid them being
                    taken over by dominant imports. Sometimes they even take responsibility
                    and undertake control work where a plant or animal has escaped beyond
                    their personal property boundary.

                    And sometimes they adopt a lasse faire attitude like 'let nature take
                    care of it'. Most stone age peoples have a more intelligent
                    comprehension of ecology that this!
                    Ask indigenous peoples what they think of particular weed species: their
                    common sense perceptions will often surprise you.
                    They use the term 'rubbish plant' a lot; if a plant or animal is in any
                    way valuable, they will acknowledge it!
                    Europeans are not the best example of a race of humans that live in
                    close proximity to nature, and not usually very good at measuring
                    ecological changes (been in cities too long)..

                    I think we are all coming to realise that the collective we have given
                    nature more than enough grief to deal with right now. More ecological
                    disruption is not better.
                    I think we humans should also realise that given certain threatening
                    processes that we seem unable or unwilling to deal with, humans may not
                    always feature prominently on the skin of this earth.
                    It therefore follows that species that we deem to be of immediate and
                    direct benefit to us may not be that significant in the scheme of future
                    things.

                    Cheers
                    D



                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Adam,
                    >
                    > On the subject of invasives (and to provide a perspecive to balance
                    > out the
                    > typical "fear-of-the-invader" view), I recommend "Invasion Biology:
                    > Critique
                    > Of A Pseudoscience," by David Theodoropoulos.
                    >
                    > It's available through Horizon Herbs, a great herb seed farm in
                    > Oregon, USA
                    > (among other places, I'm sure).
                    >
                    > Peace,
                    >
                    > Steve.
                    >
                    > --
                    > "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
                    >
                    > - Thomas Jefferson
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                  • matthew@b-and-t-world-seeds.com
                    The Aboriginal Australians seemed pretty well adapted to their home. The Yupik, Inuit and Aleut did pretty well. The Native Americans were doing OK. The
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 18, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The Aboriginal Australians seemed pretty well adapted to their home.
                      The Yupik, Inuit and Aleut did pretty well.
                      The Native Americans were doing OK.
                      The Khoisan are surviving.
                      The Yaghan are extinct.

                      Part of the survival technique for all these peoples involve quite fixed systems, learnt over hundreds of generations, but usually curiosity remains an important part of their character.

                      Matt

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: swampwitch@...
                      To: pfaf@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: 6/18/09 6:54 PM
                      Subject: [pfaf] About wineberry-rubus

                      If we'd had the ability to adapt,
                      instead of taking over and wrecking the land of Australia's indigenes,
                      we would have said:
                      "Wow! What a botanical paradise.
                      How do you eat here? Can you show us how it's done please?"
                      But it didn't happen, because they were hard-wired to replicate the old
                      country.

                      So no, I don't see a lot of evidence that we have en masse ever really
                      learned the gentle art of adaptation.
                      Instead, we seem to want to do what humans have seemingly nearly always
                      done:
                      we change everything to suit ourselves. Anthropocentric business as usual.

                      Goodbye to nature as she knew it, hello to a world almost wholly
                      dominated by the most unpredictable and selfish of all the earth's species,
                      and the handful of hardy invasives they took with them everywhere they went.

                      Permaculture desperately needs to embrace true biodiversity, not merely
                      a botanic garden of edibles from here, there, and everywhere,
                      living in splendid potty (and often unsustainable) isolation. That might
                      mean, for example, giving N-fixing local/indigenous flora a place in PC
                      designs: this would not hurt
                      food gardens at all, in fact it would help. And in the long term, it
                      would help to regenerate the original flora.

                      A mark of true adaptation?

                      D.





                      matthew@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > lol D
                      >
                      > yes, there is no going back.
                      >
                      > there are few, if any, real wildernesses left - the South American
                      > rainforests were slashed and farmed for 1000s of years, before the
                      > Europeans arrived.
                      >
                      > The garrigue in South France (where truffles grow round oaks) looks
                      > wild, but is full of terraces and walls and not so long ago was
                      > covered mainly in lime trees. Like parts of North Africa, it was
                      > goated until most of the top-soil was lost, and is expected to become
                      > Europe's next desert (no shortage of pines and olives).
                      > Maybe there are odd places so inaccessible that they have never been
                      > messed with - probably even a few little canyons here on Mindanao in
                      > the Philippines, where the interior has only been occupied for a few
                      > hundred years.
                      > In the North northern hemisphere, we had the ice ages, where most of
                      > the soil and vegetation was scraped away from enormous tracts of land.
                      > This grew back incredibly quickly.
                      >
                      > A few hundred years ago parts of the Kalahari desert were farmed,
                      > before it was desert, and now it is desert, for a few years there were
                      > gardens.
                      >
                      > I guess things change - in the past our ancestors survived by changing
                      > with the times, there are not many places left to go, and have we lost
                      > the ability to adapt ?
                      >
                      > Matt
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >



                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf/

                      Your email settings:
                      Individual Email | Traditional

                      To change settings online go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf/join
                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                      To change settings via email:
                      mailto:pfaf-digest@yahoogroups.com
                      mailto:pfaf-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      pfaf-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • D
                      Dear Matthew, Every ecosystem., especially the ones found in arid environments, has its own hardy pioneer edge species. But for some reason when the term
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 19, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Matthew,

                        Every ecosystem., especially the ones found in arid environments, has
                        its own 'hardy pioneer' edge species.
                        But for some reason when the term P/permaculture was created, they
                        forgot to make a point of including Biodiversity 101,
                        and the less well schooled in wholistic land management among us started
                        banging on about the few plants examples they had heard mentioned in a PDC,
                        and then kept doing it, and then kept doing it, and then kept doing
                        it...........................you get my point.

                        Hey, i do not exactly live in a "rich, natural, biodiverse environment'.
                        i live in South Australia, which is a as close to a man made desert
                        as anywhere which has been colonised by Europeans on earth. Wish it
                        wasn't so...
                        but this thread is as good an illustration as to how that sad state of
                        ecological affairs came to be, LOL.

                        Oh, don't get me wrong, we have our im;ported peppercorn trees,
                        desert/claret ash, Pinus radiata, European olives, etc etc etc.,
                        all seeding away merrily about the hills and ranges, as far as the eye
                        can see. I guess you could even say that they are 'quite robust'(though
                        not all survive a wildfire).
                        South Australia must be the exception that proves the rule that 'nature'
                        is quite resilient. Quite!
                        Every time I hear someone say those overly simplistic words, I ruminate
                        on how long 'nature' is going to take to 'terraform' South Australia
                        back together again...
                        and I wish I could turn back the clock and see how it was, before my
                        ancestors from Europe came and 'un-terraformed' it and and laid waste to
                        it to grow wheat and sheep.

                        No doubt the indigenous people do too! They spent 40,000 years living
                        within the constraints of nature, and we've completely stuffed it doing
                        intensive agriculture in just over 150 years.
                        Pretty good effort really. Does this mean we can now spend 150 years
                        frantically trying to fix it, or just wait an extra few thousand years
                        (or more) for nature to sort it out for us?
                        It will not be possible to faithfully replicate 100% what we had before,
                        but at least we can use it as a template for future activities. Who are
                        we to say what ecology should be, when we really dont even have many
                        clues about what that constitutes? We are now in a unique position of
                        having to take climate change into consideration, and have begun to use
                        ecotypes from warmer/drier regions father away, same species, better
                        adapted to climatic changes now being experienced locally.

                        Actually, a friend who is an ecology Masters student, in response to my
                        question:
                        " Has anyone ever created a fully functioning ecosystem?" responded with:
                        "It has never been done...and it remains one of the fundamental
                        mysteries of ecology".

                        Will the last person leaving this email list please remember to turn off
                        the server.

                        Cheers
                        D

                        Thought for the day:

                        */"A little two week course in permanent agriculture is...not nearly
                        enough to enable the student to go on to design a fully functioning
                        ecosystem.
                        But if they are alert, and the teacher is very good, the student may
                        realise that they have at least been introduced to the lengthy list of
                        things
                        that they would be required to learn... to even begin to contemplate
                        growing a survival garden for their own lifetime."/*










                        matthew@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > In principle I agree, but not everyone lives in a rich, natural,
                        > diverse environment.
                        >
                        > Deserts, real deserts as well as man made deserts, such as cities and
                        > monoculture agricultural factory farming regions, do need diversity.
                        >
                        > In some places diversity is already there in copses and hedgerows and
                        > needs extra special preservation. But where there is no nature,
                        > diversity is desirable and may need to start with quite robust pioneer
                        > plants.
                        >
                        > (Even then, a little encouragement may show a surprising natural
                        > diversity waiting for agreeable conditions to start repopulating -
                        > nature is amazingly resilient !)
                        >
                        > Matt
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: griselda1@... <mailto:griselda1%40btopenworld.com>
                        > To: pfaf@yahoogroups.com <mailto:pfaf%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: 6/18/09 3:32 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [pfaf] About wineberry-rubus
                        >
                        > Bravo!
                        > Griselda
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                      • D
                        If we d had the ability to adapt, instead of taking over and wrecking the land of Australia s indigenes, we would have said: Wow! What a botanical paradise.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 19, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If we'd had the ability to adapt,
                          instead of taking over and wrecking the land of Australia's indigenes,
                          we would have said:
                          "Wow! What a botanical paradise.
                          How do you eat here? Can you show us how it's done please?"
                          But it didn't happen, because they were hard-wired to replicate the old
                          country.

                          So no, I don't see a lot of evidence that we have en masse ever really
                          learned the gentle art of adaptation.
                          Instead, we seem to want to do what humans have seemingly nearly always
                          done:
                          we change everything to suit ourselves. Anthropocentric business as usual.

                          Goodbye to nature as she knew it, hello to a world almost wholly
                          dominated by the most unpredictable and selfish of all the earth's species,
                          and the handful of hardy invasives they took with them everywhere they went.

                          Permaculture desperately needs to embrace true biodiversity, not merely
                          a botanic garden of edibles from here, there, and everywhere,
                          living in splendid potty (and often unsustainable) isolation. That might
                          mean, for example, giving N-fixing local/indigenous flora a place in PC
                          designs: this would not hurt
                          food gardens at all, in fact it would help. And in the long term, it
                          would help to regenerate the original flora.

                          A mark of true adaptation?

                          D.





                          matthew@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > lol D
                          >
                          > yes, there is no going back.
                          >
                          > there are few, if any, real wildernesses left - the South American
                          > rainforests were slashed and farmed for 1000s of years, before the
                          > Europeans arrived.
                          >
                          > The garrigue in South France (where truffles grow round oaks) looks
                          > wild, but is full of terraces and walls and not so long ago was
                          > covered mainly in lime trees. Like parts of North Africa, it was
                          > goated until most of the top-soil was lost, and is expected to become
                          > Europe's next desert (no shortage of pines and olives).
                          > Maybe there are odd places so inaccessible that they have never been
                          > messed with - probably even a few little canyons here on Mindanao in
                          > the Philippines, where the interior has only been occupied for a few
                          > hundred years.
                          > In the North northern hemisphere, we had the ice ages, where most of
                          > the soil and vegetation was scraped away from enormous tracts of land.
                          > This grew back incredibly quickly.
                          >
                          > A few hundred years ago parts of the Kalahari desert were farmed,
                          > before it was desert, and now it is desert, for a few years there were
                          > gardens.
                          >
                          > I guess things change - in the past our ancestors survived by changing
                          > with the times, there are not many places left to go, and have we lost
                          > the ability to adapt ?
                          >
                          > Matt
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.