Bringing Zone 5 Back to Permaculture

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#12

For sure, money is the trap we’re in, and it’s a catch-22 situation. It’s always possible to have a zone 5, though. I mean, in reality, it’s all zone 5, we just imagine we’re “designing” what we call 1 to 4, but that’s like smudging the Mona Lisa with solvent and calling it art.

I posted a video from my garden above in this thread. It’s not finished yet, but I’m trying to get some food without straying much from the zone 5 idea. I think in a small area that might be the best thing. The main lesson I got from permaculture was to learn from the wild, and to me, that’s more important than all the other stuff together.

If I don’t have room for all the zones, then I have to adapt my plan. The zones are only there as a learning tool, they’re not fundamental in the same way as the wildness as teacher thing is. The reason for the zones is to make things you use a lot be closer to your dwelling place. It follows logically that if you don’t have space for zone 5 (or even 4!) then you really don’t need zones! Or you could have a zone 1 right outside, and the rest can be just where you practice permaculture, by which I mean the pronciples, not the techniques taught based on the principles.

If your space is insufficient for the techniques already developed, then use the principles to come up with new techniques that do fit your space. And if you want to grow loads of veggies instead, that’s fine. The only thing that’s wrong is the people who do that and insist on calling it permaculture.

Does that make any sense?!

#13

This is crucial I think. Yes, people mostly believe that you just leave zone 5 alone, but all over the Amazon (for example) it’s becoming apparent that the local primitive people have a huge impact on the forest. I think probably every species does. We just need to learn how to fit in and be beneficial to the whole instead of detrimental.

#14

It’s really funny, over here in Ireland people keep mentioning “the queen” and I say “which queen?”. They look confused and say “THE queen”. It’s amazing.

#15

In so much of the world, where we know something about how indigenous people interact/ed with the land, there is little distinction between “gardens” and the wild. That might, in some way, fit a permaculture vision, but not in the form permaculture is typically taught. Its taught to fit into our urban existence, and to that end I really don’t have a problem with it as a transitionary force. I do have a problem when wildness is relegated to some portion of your world that you rarely interact with, while other portions of your world are intensively managed. I also have a problem when certain portions of the natural world that have retained some wildness are converted to a drastically different state for the sake of permaculture. For example, sometimes I feel like I’m the only one who questions Sepp Holzer terracing mountains to raise pigs and out-of-place sub-tropical fruits in the Alps. Its impressive, but is it appropriate for his landbase?

#16

Why is zone 5 so important? And if you plant a nut forest, how does it differ from a wild forest? Thanks.

#17

Good question, and sorry for not being more thorough. Here’s what I think, I’d be grateful for any discussion/different perspectives though.

A nut forest could just be a load of nut trees with everything else suppressed. The diversity that’s crucial to the health of the ecosystem can be entirely missing.

It differs from a wild forest in that the organisms who inhabit it are dominated by one species, humans. The will of everything else is put under the will of that species. In a wild forest, everyone’s will is in competition and cooperation, no-one has the final say on anything. The wild forest is the expression of the will of countless self-willed (wild) beings. The nut forest exists only to serve the will of one, who might not even live there.

As a whole, the wild forest adapts itself to changes in its environment, and fits in with whatever is happening in the universe it’s a part of. The nut forest doesn’t do this, and its dogged determination to continue producing nuts for the humans who dominate it give it a distinct disadvantage when changes happen, making it less resilient and less likely to survive the changes that will inevitably happen. It’s like the difference between a diverse, healthy gut flora and the devastated one you see after a course of antibiotics.

Zone 5 is to me a crucial aspect of permaculture. Zones are purely in the imagination of the human doing the work. They’re just a way of making categories out of infinite complexity, so that our limited intellect can believe it “understands” what’s going on, and how to proceed in a way that will produce food for us while we learn more about our world.

Zone 5 refers to the only real “zone”. The rest of them (1 to 4) are derivations, simplifications of zone 5. If we ignore it, as most “permies” do, then we can’t really learn anything about the source of the other zones, and end up in a self-referencing circle of illogical deductions and notions based on our own preconceptions or what we would like stuff to be, not on reality.

Without zone 5, permaculture is like a science project with no references, I think it’s so important because with it, permaculture can be a beginning for people to learn how to live within reality, as opposed to the fantasy world we presently occupy. It can provide the grammar and logic out of which we can become wiser. Without zone 5 it’s as worthless as all the other new-age, self-obsessed diversions from the truth of how things work here on earth, which we must understand if we want to survive.

Zone 5 is just another word for wildness.
something like that…
Andy

#18

Well said, Andy! I think that landscape homogenization and anthropocentrism are the major flaws with the typical “food forest” design. Enthusiastic permaculturalists are typically provided a list of maybe 100 or so species that work best in their climate. But those 100 species are from around the world and are not specific to one’s place. 100 might sound like a big number, but if we plant them over and over again in our food forests, we displace the thousands of species that would exist there otherwise. And with the displacement of those species goes the immensely complex set of relationships they have co-evolved with over millennia. Furthermore, it shifts the directionality of relationships from cyclical and convoluted to simple and directional: everything moves toward the human epicenter of the system. We like to convince ourselves that that’s not the case, that we are supporting pollinators and soil microbes and nesting birds, but in reality we are only supporting those who tolerate our control of their world.

This is also why I have a problem defining our goals as regeneration rather than restoration. We too often celebrate the introduction of a handful of species that maintain the soil conditions that we prefer or that we value. We applaud the creation of honey bee habitat. But those are not necessarily restoring the complex web of diverse species interactions that we’ve mostly forgotten ever existed.

I also like your point about resilience. Are food forests (as they are typically designed, not native/natural forests that can be tended for food productions) resilient to changes in disturbance or climate? Should they be resilient? Should we be manufacturing resilient, non-natural systems where others used to reside? What about the human cultures that used to have relationships with particular ecosystems? Should we recreate those relationships with novel, human manufactured ecosystems?

1 Like
#19

Wow just looked at this thread, definitely some interesting stuff! I agree with this sentiment, that permaculture has some things to offer but is also seriously flawed on some levels. The more I learn about foraging the more I learn about how many indigenous peoples constantly tended the land through controlled burns, selective harvesting and even propagating favorable food species. In terms of things like resilience to climate change, water supply for a homestead or small, high-intensity areas, I think permaculture is great. That said, I think it is limited, as many of y’all have mentioned, by its lack of focus on wild plants. Personally I think that food systems should be based around mimicking the ecosystems of an area, not just nature in general, as many permaculture food forests seem to do. I see serious problems and complications with the idea of “designing” a natural system, particularly when this system needs water. Systems should be largely self-sustaining. Also annuals are way too big of a deal even on many “permaculture” farms I’ve been to. I’m of the mindset that pretty much nobody should ever garden with them because they are such a massive waste of time.

#20

The Feralculture project is an attempt to address a lot of the flaws of Permaculture and take it a more Rewilding direction. Check it out: https://feralculture.com

Here’s an interview that Andrew (of Feralculture) did with Kevin Tucker (of Black and Green Review): https://feralculture.com/talking-nodal-land-projects-with-kevin-tucker

Here’s an interview with Toby Hemenway (Gaia’s Garden) about these issues too: https://feralculture.com/toby-hemenway-talks-toward-a-horticultural-society-on-free-radical-radio

I’m actually hoping to find accomplices who want to do a Feralculture-like project in Cascadia.

1 Like
#21

I’ve been reading into the ideas of the feralculture folks. I think they are much more on-point. I think that falling in love with a place, learning the members of the natural community there, and recognizing patterns in ecological gradients and species arrangements are all crucial to evolving beyond the ideas of permaculture. When we stay with a particular place long enough and value the ecological and traditional wisdom that resides there, permaculture will become superfluous. Its a great tool for introducing folks to sustainability and natural systems, but it really can be just a shadow of the real world. The real world is wild - perhaps human-influenced, but not human-created.

Regarding the use of annuals: They do have their place in all ecological systems. For example, disturbance is essential for the maintenance of certain communities, and annuals thrive in disturbed areas (like, say, after a fire or flood). Also, annuals tend to seed prolifically, and can move about the landscape finding a niche from year to year. There are really important annual plants that can be used for food, medicine, and materials that are typically growing amongst perennials in just about any place.

#22

I’m also interested in using the feralculture model here in the Willamette Valley. I especially like the land trust idea. I think its very difficult to recreate that scenario west of the Cascades, however. There are just limited places where people could be based that would allow them to be semi- or seasonally nomadic. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and am leaning more toward the idea of establishing a land trust that would have at its core a mission to reincorporate traditional management and food-collecting activities. I think this would be well-recieved. However, I also think it would be a very within-the-system organization if it were located in a highly populated area. Not nearly the rewilding experience folks are getting in Alaska.

#23

I’d like to hang out with any Feralculture/Egalitarian Land Trust interested folks in the Willamette Valley. Feel free to contact me, or maybe I’ll see you at Echoes in Time?

#24

Well yeah, that’s a good point. I guess my intended meaning was that they have to be used according to the patterns of succession, just as all plants do. It seems like succession can be simulated to produce useful plant species (e.g. fire) but the problem just comes when people are trying to simulate yearly succession for annuals by tilling. I didn’t mean to discount them out of hand. Definitely lots of biennials that are great as well. The ideas about the land trust are exciting, land really does seem to be the limiting factor, especially west of the Cascades where so much of the land is developed or used for agriculture. But also, larger cities means more people interested in these things. Definitely interesting to think about.

#25

I’m interested in meeting local folks as well. Unfortunately, right now I have virtually no time to work on these projects. My partner and I have a multi-year plan for getting some money together and potentially starting a non-profit that could facilitate some of this work. But it involves finishing up our graduate degrees and being semi-“normal” people for a while. :slightly_smiling: I’ll be finished this summer and hope to have all kinds of time, energy, and perhaps $ to take a run at this.

I’ve never been to Echoes in Time. Perhaps I’ll look into attending this year. If I do, I’ll definitely let you know. I think this is a conversation that should continue in some form.

I’m especially interested in discussing ideas regarding remaining non-hierarchical while still having some leadership. I think that both will be crucial, especially given how much collaboration would need to take place in a highly developed area. But perhaps that is getting a bit off-topic for this thread.

Leadership vs Ruling
#26

This all sounds great (Feralculture) . My only obstacle is the name. It’s clearly derived from permaculture, so why not call it permaculture? It adheres to all the principles, so why let the compromisers take over? Let them explain how their deviations from the principles can still be called permaculture.

It reminds me of vegetarianism.

Originally vegetarians didn’t eat any animal products. Eggs are not veg, nor is milk. I don’t have a dog in that fight, but the dishonesty bugs me. Why should people who only eat vegetable matter have to change their name to accommodate the lacto-vergetarians, the ovo-vegetarians and the pesco-vegetarians?

I’m a carno-vegetarian, I guess by their logic I’m a vegetarian too. It’s the same as with so many words, once we allow the weak to change our perception of meaning to suit them, we all become weaker. Spells have power.

#27

To be fair, I was only using the term to respond to Dennis’ post. I personally don’t care for it. I don’t think you can sum up the sorts of transitions we need to make in either term. The folks who do use the term have some interesting ideas, though. So I suppose I was allowing myself to use their language.

I personally don’t care for the permaculture mentality, and have not been inspired by folks who use it to “rewild”. Honestly all of these terms (including “rewild”) are a bit silly to me. The ways in which we make a living in this world are fluid and transient over both long and short intervals of time. But regardless of terms or personalities or ideologies or movements, what works in the long-run is what works for your particular place. That sentiment is constantly co-opted by permaculture folks who don’t have a deep enough knowledge of what works for their place to make that call for the greater community. It really becomes a cult of personality in which gurus mislead well-intentioned folks into believing that there is a feel-good solution. I do think that some of the undercurrents in rewilding and “Feralculture” diverge from that model, and I appreciate that. But I agree that disposing of certain language would be a good start in clearly redefining what place-based wild living would look like.

#28

This all sounds great (Feralculture) . My only obstacle is the name. It’s clearly derived from permaculture, so why not call it permaculture? It adheres to all the principles, so why let the compromisers take over? Let them explain how their deviations from the principles can still be called permaculture.

Here’s one example: Permaculturists can create neo-Feudalism and still call it Permaculture. See Paul Wheaton, Joel Salatin (who openly uses “fiefdom”), Mark Shepard. See the many Permaculture land projects that offer “internships” that people have to pay $$$$ for. Feralculture land projects would attempt to avoid the rigged power games of: gifts with expectation of return, debt, barter, work trade, and land ownership. I’d rather not relate personal stories (that might end up personal attacks) of living on permaculture “communities”, but they were not egalitarian. Those who “owned” the land had the final say. Egalitarian cultures would not put up with such silliness.

For background on the difference between egalitarian/human economics and modern economics see Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber (PDF). In contrast, see “Stacking Fiefdoms” lecture from Permaculture Voices by Joel Salatin on YouTube (or don’t if you get queasy easy). Or, rather, just go outside and remember the lines of “properties” are not there. They are imaginary. People who create imaginary power relationships based on Roman laws are encouraging violence and abuse plain and simple. Many hunter/gatherer groups transitioned back and forth between hierarchy and egalitarian relationships (see “Paleolithic Politics and Why It Still Matters”). In my experience, Permaculture has been all Feudalism. I want to emphasize Joel Salatin gave that lecture at Permaculture Voices, which is an attempt to make Permaculture mainstream. No thanks. Bye Permaculture.

I would love to hear where Permaculture folks criticize landlords/benevolent dictators, and advocate for egalitarian relationships with everything. I’d like to think that’s Toby Hemenway’s intention (maybe), who also spoke at Permaculture Voices. More what I see in Permaculture are people creating “compounds” like the Bullock Brothers homestead for “interns” to pay to work at. Permaculturists love expensive workshops! This not the experience I had at semi-open rewilding land projects I’ve been apart of or visited in the PNW and elsewhere: no rent, no work trade, etc.

No Gods, No Landlords! All Masters, No Interns! Free the Land! :slightly_smiling:

1 Like
#29

I agree 100%. And to add to that, folks like Joel Salatin do little to restore non-human natural relationships. In other words, their interactions with the natural world make about as much sense to me as their interactions with the humans of whom they take advantage.

#30

Here’s an essay from Black Seed #1 called “Uncivilizing Permaculture” that seems relevant to this discussion. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tanday-lupalupa-uncivilizing-permaculture-black-seed-issue-one

From the essay: “If then, the aim is the wild, and not simply the garden, then
permaculture is a step in the right direction. Though, to be honest, it
never seemed that many permaculturists I encountered ever seemed to see
the forest for the trees – they only ever saw a garden.”

#32

I read that, in Belgium and the Netherlands (where I live), the native oak is a possible habitat for about 300 organisms (fungi, moss, insects, birds and bats) but the imported American oak (300 years ago) is less than 10 % of that amount. I also read that when you let potatoes in the ground during winter they get eaten by a native fungus.

I guess as native as possible is more resilient. To what degree do you think that a system of diverse, native and mostly anthropocentric perennials + gardens with native species and wild spices will survive? To what degree should you incorporate non anthropocentric trees?

Where I live there is only 10% forest and 50% agricultural land and I want to plant a huge food forest because I’m very new age. I even made a design for a post apocalypse mp3-player to save digital music :stuck_out_tongue: