Pages

Sunday, March 29, 2015

This doesn't make sense




Right on the heels of my post about permaculture, a long-view approach to a respectful relationship with the natural resources around us, and one that admittedly requires curiosity, patience, humility and real, hard work, I ran across a magazine article that stopped me. In the past I might have regarded the gardening tips in the article more benignly. But not now.

I won't mention the magazine because it doesn't matter. The information provided isn't materially different from what other magazines or websites on creating pleasant home and garden environments might offer. But the content of one tip in particular caused me to stop in my tracks. The tip, quoted verbatim below is:

"Step up to better soil. Raised beds can be filled with the very best topsoil so you don't have to spend years improving difficult ground. Traditional wood beds are fine, but composite decking boards and rusted steel are decorative and durable."

Yes! Better soil! No! Not that way! We can't continue to buy our way into growing sustainably. We need to do the  work of rebuilding our resources. The answer isn't for big companies to improve soil so they can scrape it into bags I buy. Its my responsibility to take care of the bit I have and create more and better soil. And I believe it's everyone's job. We've forgotten that, or become disconnected from it or call it what you will, but I believe we all decide to do the necessary work and forgo immediately gratifying gardens, we're just kidding ourselves.

The Land Institute has been working for decades to improve soil by researching and promoting polyculture (growing multiple crops/rotating them) rather than the monoculture that has overtaken US agriculture. They also promote perennial grains (like the grains that grew before modern farming) rather than the annual crops that the vast majority of farmers grow. This big-scale solution can be applied in container gardening as well. Paying attention to how we treat our soil and improve it rather than replacing it every year and starting fresh feels more responsible. More sustainable. More right. 

What to do besides supporting the Land Institute's work? Start composting. Have your yard soil tested and work to bring back its health naturally. Grow plants that help the soil and each other. Fertilize and deal with pests and plant diseases naturally. Help support pollinators. Yes, it's work. Worthy work. Satisfying work. Necessary work. And work that won't wait.
When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. By consulting Nature as the source and measure of that membership, The Land Institute seeks to develop an agriculture that will save soil from being lost or poisoned, while promoting a community life at once prosperous and enduring.” - See more at: http://www.landinstitute.org/about-us/vision-mission/#sthash.uUh0m7ZH.dpuf
When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. By consulting Nature as the source and measure of that membership, The Land Institute seeks to develop an agriculture that will save soil from being lost or poisoned, while promoting a community life at once prosperous and enduring.” - See more at: http://www.landinstitute.org/about-us/vision-mission/#sthash.uUh0m7ZH.dpuf
When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. By consulting Nature as the source and measure of that membership, The Land Institute seeks to develop an agriculture that will save soil from being lost or poisoned, while promoting a community life at once prosperous and enduring.” - See more at: http://www.landinstitute.org/about-us/vision-mission/#sthash.uUh0m7ZH.dpuf
When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. By consulting Nature as the source and measure of that membership, The Land Institute seeks to develop an agriculture that will save soil from being lost or poisoned, while promoting a community life at once prosperous and enduring.” - See more at: http://www.landinstitute.org/about-us/vision-mission/#sthash.uUh0m7ZH.dpuf

Friday, March 27, 2015

Change that makes sense

One of the many posters in the Lexicon of Sustainability



An email landed in my inbox today from the folks at the Lexicon of Sustainability. I got acquainted with their work a couple of years ago and have been a fan ever since. They tell the story of sustainable food, growing, practices - you name it - so that people are using a common language when they talk. And hopefully, then, when they understand the issues they face. 

This poster on permaculture was explained as being a shift in thinking and living. A stepping back to see the really big picture. It said:

The word ‘permaculture’ comes from the melding of two words: ‘permanent culture’ and ‘permanent agriculture’,” points out Rhamis Kent. “It’s something that’s able to sustain itself by the very nature in which it’s constructed. As Bill Mollison says, ‘It’s the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way.’" Learn how permaculture is not just a sustainable agriculture method, but a lifestyle for many.

Makes sense to me.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Today at the grocery






I am in the middle of a mindfulness workshop. At week four of an eight-week class intended to help me be more present in the "now." Doing so, I'm told, reduces stress, and as a result, improves health, as well as allows one to see things more clearly, without emotion or attachment to a specific outcome. Part of the practice is to observe how you react - not seek to change or judge - just observe. So I did.

Today I went to the grocery. It has been so cold and snowy that this was the first day I considered it. It was clear and cold with slushy, sandy, salty uck everywhere. Outside and in. Inevitable.

While shopping I came around the end of an aisle to see a young - perhaps six or seven-year-old - boy running toward me. He was bundled up in a snowsuit against the cold. Perhaps to distract him from being indoors in outdoors clothes or for another reason entirely he was eating a slice of processed cheese food. It was bunched up in one hand as he ran. But it was obvious that it was that product that comes wrapped in plastic, slice by slice. He was running to (I assume) catch up with whomever he was there with. Maybe he dawdled in front of the Fruit Loops too long, but he was on a tear. When dodging a shopper, he dropped he cheese on the floor.

(I could stop here, but I won't.)

He stopped in his tracks and without missing a beat, picked up the cheese, took a bite and started running again. He disappeared around the corner.


That was my observation. My reaction - even though I wasn't supposed to have one - had several levels...

(Level 1) YUCK!

(Level 2) Why would a child eat off a floor covered with slushy, sandy, salty uck? Where was the adult supervision?

(Level 3) It's bad enough that the child is eating processed food, but from the floor!?

There was a time that I or another adult who saw what was about to happen would have stepped in to stop it. And the parent or other adult with that child would have thanked the person intervening.  Isn't that as bad for society as it is for the child? Not even considering the pros/cons of processed food.

So, the connection back to mindfulness? I'm struggling with that. It appears that the child wasn't mindful of his action, but he's a child. At what point is it reasonable to expect that?

The adult that I assume was somewhere nearby was perhaps being as mindful as they could be - providing cheese rather than sugar - trying to deal with many things simultaneously.  Maybe they would have quickly snatched that cheese away before the bite could be taken if they had only seen it.

But the intervention of the past...what about that? What happened to "it takes a village to raise a child" and the assumption of good intent when others took a person's child in hand? The assumption of shared values about basic things like looking out for a child's welfare? Were past interventions really mindful or reactive? Does it matter if the intent is to stop a a child from eating something from a really dirty floor? Why do "good Samaritans" need laws to protect them?

I have so many questions...maybe there are satisfying answers out there. I hope so.