[permaculture-oceania] Re: the 'rights-based' approach
Terry Leahy
Terry.Leahy at newcastle.edu.au
Fri Aug 18 14:30:53 EST 2006
Dear John Bickmore,
Have written on the topic of what kind of political system a sustainable society may have. The article most closely connected to this on my website is called "Options for a Sustainable Future" and can be found at
http://octapod.org:8000/gifteconomy//
Another version of this is at Electronic Green Journal - an article co-authored with John Coates
For more detail see other articles on my octapod site especially
On the Edge of Utopia: A Letter to the Green Parties (about 80 pages or more long!)
and
Anarchist and Hybrid Strategies
Hope you find this useful. The first is a good orientation to different models for a sustainable society and will help you to get a grasp of the field of discussion,
Terry
>>> lindajohnandsophie at hotmail.com Friday, 18 August 2006 10:36 am >>>
Hi I am very interested in this topic. I am writing an essay for uni about
what political system a sustainable society may have. Clearly our current
society is not sustainable. I am thinking of using Cuba as an example of a
society that is truly working towards sustainability.
According to George, Tony & Johnny making changes to save the planet will be
bad for our economy. Howard has said this in the last few days in response
to a state led carbon trading scheme. I think its very clear that we
obviously need a new system!!!. One that allows us to make the neccesary
changes.
Getting back to the rights thing. I think Wackernagels footprint analysis
is the only equitable way to distribute rights. I think the current share
is 1.8ha (shrinking all the time as population rises and we render
agricultural land unuseable). I know my footprint isnt that small, and
would be surprised if any on this list (in Australia) were. I think this
share is also based on not leaving any for the other species, and I think we
are just another species that has gone feral, so still being selfish we
would have to lower that share to maybe 1 ha, to allow other species to
continue. I would be interested if anyone knows what sort of footprints are
achievable with permaculture. I am sure a permaculture footprint would be
the lowest achievable other than indiginous peoples living a traditional way
of life.
As Delgado Díaz explains: "As a spiritual phenomenon, capitalism has
produced ways of viewing life and has equipped modern man and woman with an
ethical outlook that is incompatible with the solution of the environmental
problem that science has advanced as technically viable." (I think this was
in the green left weekly)
Also I am wondering if anyone has anything positive to say about
"biobanking" which the NSW government is implementing to allow developers to
clear endangered ecosystems while appearing to be green.
Regards
John Bickmore
<html><div><IMG height=75
src="http://www.geocities.com/peakoilaware/english_files/wakeupbumperlittlesticker.jpg"
width=250></div></html>
Hi
>From: Robyn Williamson <robinet at aapt.net.au>
>Reply-To: promoting permaculture and sustainable living in the oceania
>region<permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au>
>To: permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
>Subject: [permaculture-oceania] Re: the 'rights-based' approach
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:27:06 +1000
>
>In their 2004 Hodder publication "Going Native", eminent conservation
>biologist Michael Archer and feature journalist Bob Beale
>have the following to say in Chapter 6 pp 139-153 'The Rights and Wrongs of
>Roos':
>
>Firstly they remind us that humankind is just another animal in the web of
>life who somewhere along the evolution track invented the fence and other
>barriers like roads which have the effect of dividing the surface of the
>earth into ever-decreasing, "isolated bits of life that rip at the
>integrity of the web ..."
>
>"We argue that the notion of animal (read: human) rights is in fact
>dangerous to the future of biodiversity. It is yet another type of fence
>that creates an unnatural rationale for limiting how far humans can value,
>integrate with and use the natural world, further widening the gap between
>humans and nature and further endangering the future of both. As this gap
>widens, the fences become higher, and the future for what's on both sides
>falls away. The right way forward - the only way to guarantee
>sustainability - is to pull down those fences and learn once again how to
>live with, depend on and value the system of which we are a natural part."
>
>They go on to talk about the problems with 'conservation as usual' first
>describing the image of the modern naturalist who sets off into the bush
>equipped with something like steel-capped boots, a backpack, camping gear,
>a multitude of tools for observing and dissecting nature, food, water, a
>change of undies and other items deemed necessary for surviving the
>experience. They then compare this to indigenous humans who 'survived'
>living in the Australian bush for something like 50,000 years without any
>backpacks but with completely unconditional love and respect for the land,
>water, plants, other animals and the ecosystems of which they were a
>natural part. This is a prime example of how humankind's dependence upon
>and use of other animals can lead to the long term conservation of both.
>
>I tend to agree with Mr Fukuoka when he says that "nature is unknowable",
>certainly not by modern humans anyway. If you don't know something
>(include self), you can't even begin to understand it and the concept of
>animal (including human) rights seems to be something of a furphy.
>
>Knowing the scientific name of something doesn't mean you *know* it,
>understanding something comes only after years of observation and practice.
> The monocultural mind appears to have made lots of people believe that
>you can take one animal out of the ecosystem and elevate it above all the
>others, classify it top of the food chain and bestow 'rights' upon it to
>the exclusion (read: ignorance) of all the others and their own complex
>relationships, which makes the needs of the whole ecosystem greater than
>those of any individual part of it, in my view. I agree with Rowe that all
>have basic rights to clean air, water and natural food.
>
>Messrs Archer & Beale also point out: "While it is now a well-articulated
>philosophical view, animal (read: human) rights is an unnatural
>intellectual construct that has no counterpart in the real world of
>healthy, functioning ecosystems. Contrast it with what happens in the real
>world of animals: a grasshopper fat from the flesh of plants, is impaled by
>spider fangs that pump in organ-dissolving digestive juices while its eight
>eyes are scoured from beneath by the larvae of parasitic wasps soon to
>erupt through its still-living head; an injured wallaby is dissected alive
>by the slavering jaws of Tasmanian devils; and killer whales and sharks
>chomp chunks of living flesh from aged whales and seals too slow to evade
>them. Nature embraces ruin with complete disregard for the welfare of her
>creations, green or furred, microscopic or colossal. The webs of life are
>mindlessly amoral."
>
>Scarier than fiction, hey, Going Native is a great read, much better than
>watching the other real world on tv where humankind is running around
>blowing themselves and each other to smithereens.
>
>Robyn W
>
>
>
>On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:00 pm,
>permaculture-oceania-request at lists.cat.org.au wrote:
>>------------------------------
>>Subject: Re: [permaculture-oceania] the 'rights-based' approach'
>>
>>Dear Steve
>>
>>I agree entirely and wonder if you and would mind if I forward your
>>response on the Melbourne Gaiavic list where we have had a few discussions
>>around the suggestion that other species may have 'rights' too, or that by
>>giving humans basic needs, we are depriving other species of theirs.
>>
>>cheers
>>Di
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Arnold
>> To: permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:33 PM
>> Subject: [permaculture-oceania] the 'rights-based' approach'
>>
>>
>> Generally I find talk of "rights" a bit self-righteous.
>>
>>
>> I think we all are going to need to be more and more flexible and
>>accommodating of each other, less individualistic, and think in terms of
>>trying to meet people's basic needs, rather than rights.
>>
>>
>> And I agree that clean water, air, uncontaminated soils etc. [access]
>>to non
>>>genetically modified food are basic needs.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>David Arnold
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Rowe and others,
>>>
>>>Can I invite responses on the general issue of whether humans have
>>>'rights' at all?
>>>
>>>Within the Humanitarian industry, the 'rights-based approach' is now
>>>very popular - it takes as its basis the concept that all humans, just
>>>by being born, have endowed on them certain rights (such as to space,
>>>water, calorific intake, etc)... Seems fair enough - especially as it
>>>arose out of a desire to give dignity to people suffering 'natural'
>>>disasters or who had been born into desperate situations in developing
>>>countries... moving them from a disempowered role as 'beneficiaries'
>>>of the generousity of the wealthy to a position where they have a
>>>'right' to those things they are currently missing. The rights-based
>>>approach seems to assume that there is an unlimited pool of resources
>>>to supply that which is the 'right' of all.
>>>
>>>In what sense can humans have rights if the energy/resources/etc
>>>required to deliver those rights exceeds the capacity of the planet to
>>>deliver them? (I completely concede that most resources are terribly
>>>inequitably distributed, but even allowing for that, might not the
>>>limits to growth impact on the limits to rights?
>>>
>>>Also, if humans have rights, do other species have rights? The
>>>rights-based approach seems inherently specist - no one in the
>>>humanitarian industry seems interested in discussions about whether
>>>whales, caribou or date palms have rights... they are too busy saving
>>>humans. Fair enough - that's their job... but if they are going to
>>>get philosophical, shouldn't their basic premise be well
>>>thought-through? Anyone who can send this question to Peter Singer is
>>>welcome to do so!
>>>
>>>warm regards,
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>(currently working for a large humanitarian NGO)
>>>
>Rosemary Morrow wrote:
>>>I remember having a discussion about ethics in a PDC group once, and I
>>>was a bit perplexed. Later I was talking to Bill Mollison and asked
>>>what he thought about this, and I appreciated his response because of
>>>its clarity:
>>>
>>>"Permaculture is about tangibles"
>
>
>>>
>>>I think this is a useful guide to not adding new items. Also almost
>>>everything people want to add is subsumed under the ethics. Although
>>>I was just thinking that we have principles, strategies and techniques
>>>for Care for the Earth, and distribute surplus, and reduce
>>>consumption, we really dont have very many for Care for People. I
>>>have added a chapter on Permaculture at Work, with help from Margot
>>>Turner, and it adds such things as
>>>
>>>Value people for their differences,
>>>
>>>and then uses many of the principles at work such as co-operate don't
>>>compete.
>>>
>>>I have also been thinking that the design of permaculture for water or
>>>soils, actually enables some extra human rights which will be required
>>>this century such as the:
>>>
>>>Right to clean water, air, uncontaminated soils etc. Right to non
>>>genetically modified food
>>>
>>>I could see these being included in any Bill or Charter of Human
>>>Rights which aims to meet the needs of the future.
>>>
>>>I guess you will take some of these ideas further.
>>>
>>>Warmly,
>>>
>>>Rowe Morrow
>>
>Penny Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> David wrote.
>> Generally I find talk of "rights" a bit self-righteous.
>>
>> What is glaringly obvious is that there is a lot of talk about rights,
>>but hardly any about responsibility - not in the same breath, and not from
>>the most outspoken 'rights' people.
>>
>> To me the two are a pair and should not be separated.
>>
>> P Ferguson
>> Illawarra NSW
>>-------------
>
>CONTACT DETAILS:
>
>Robyn Williamson
>Permaculture Design Consultant
>Urban Horticulturist
>Local Seed Network Coordinator
>NORTH WESTERN SYDNEY COMMUNITY SEED SAVERS
>mobile: 0409 151 435
>ph/fx: (612) 9629 3560
>http://www.seedsavers.net
>http://www.communityfoods.org.au
>http://www.communitygarden.org.au
>http://www.baulkhamhills.nsw.gov.au/Bidjiwong
>
>I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of
>ignorance. *-Reuben Blades*
>_______________________________________________
>permaculture-oceania mailing list
>permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
>http://lists.cat.org.au/mailman/listinfo/permaculture-ocea
_________________________________________________________________
Win petrol with drive.com.au - 3 times each weekday!
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Eau%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fclk%3B42319378%3B13690542%3Bk&_t=757220195&_m=EXT
_______________________________________________
permaculture-oceania mailing list
permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
http://lists.cat.org.au/mailman/listinfo/permaculture-oceania
More information about the Pil-pc-oceania
mailing list