Disclaimer: all images belong to their copyright holders.
Above you see an image of a group of permaculturists posing for the camera during a group gathering. Permaculture is a term invented by a man named “Holmgren” (that’s what I read on Wikipedia). You may be wondering, why is this guy calling out a bunch of innocent-looking farm people? Don’t they provide communities with delicious farm products?
I would respond, it is the perpetuation of the ideal of permaculture and not the objective value of their activity that makes permaculturists enemies of life on Earth. There are certain groups of people in this world who live on islands: for example, the English, the Irish, the Scottish, the Scandinavians, the Taiwanese, the Sri Lankans, the Samoans, the Hawaiians, the Japanese, the Cubans, etc. Out of those groups of people, there are those who conduct trade by ship, and there are those who do not.
Now, in the eyes of people who dwell on large contiguous land masses (not islands), island people have a peculiarly insular mentality; in order to communicate, they tend to make everything into metaphorical islands in their mind. This is usually not a problem, except when it comes to food.
As we all know, food is a scarce commodity on the Earth; it is limited in supply but in potentially unlimited demand. Traditionally, only men who are powerful, strong, smart, or lucky enough to gather food decide who eats, and thus, who survives. However, with the development of agriculture, there becomes an incentive for the simple formulaic work known as farming. As we also know, nobody really wants to farm. So, we develop technology, machines and social systems, to make food production easier.
There is no problem with farming as long as it is done under the care and supervision of an intelligent person, a person who has the instinct to judge the nobility of life, and knows who deserves to eat and who doesn’t.
A farmer does not have the right to eat simply because he does the work of farming. The seed of the plant is to be sown according to the will of the plant, and not according to human cleverness unless that cleverness is directed by the noble intention to abate hunger. Thus it turns out that the one we call “farmer” is not the one who does the work of farming without hunger in his body, or without the right to distribute the products of the farm, but only the one whose hunger is matched with as much violence as necessary to successfully direct the performance of the work of farming, whether by himself or by the hands of another.
Permaculture is a perversion of the noble ideal of the strength of food-gathering man; permaculturists would argue that to farm is nothing more than to “use the land” for one’s own survival, suggesting that hunger is not even a real emotion, and that a simple promise to limit the area of land occupied justifies the “use of the land” for the purpose of self-sustenance, whether by eating the products of the farm or by trading them for necessities. The permaculturist asks us if he can claim a piece of the earth forever, for no other reason except his (and presumably his progeny’s) survival according to the rational biological necessity of food consumption; he offers in return a gift of his theoretical approval of our conduct should we choose to follow in his footsteps.
The world of permaculture is thus a world of “biological” beings who eat according to rules, and not according to hunger; said beings would also obviously seek to spread the idea that life requires food according to law, and not according to hunger, and perhaps that those who don’t accept the laws of biology shouldn’t eat from the permaculturist’s land. To go one step further, the permaculturist ends up being committed to enforcing the rational necessity of food as a law, and thereby to symbolically stripping man (and all life) of hunger, which is the source of strength. Not only does the permaculturist conquer land by force of fear of counter-idealism, but he also subdues all life around him by imposing the rationality of survival, and all this simply by virtue of the ignoble logic of permaculture.
Thus we can do the world a huge favor by opposing the ideal of permaculture. It is obviously an ideal that developed on an island culture that was opposed to or unable to conduct trade by ship, but it is definitely misplaced on large contiguous land masses.