There was a short-lived thread in this section -- "A must-watch controversial doco!"
I regret that I missed it before the thread got locked... and I do hope I'm not breaking any forum rules by resurrecting the subject, but I will make every effort to keep on topic, and not derail into the tinfoil-hat realm.
I am a curious sort by nature, so when objections arise to pieces of information, I tend to seek them out, rather than dismiss them out of hand.
So when the matter of Lyndon LaRouche came up (who is not actually in the linked film), I took it upon myself to investigate, and actually watch the film. Incidentally, while many dismiss LaRouche as a lone crank, he does talk a lot of sense if you listen. While like anyone else he does inject his own semantics, and thus must be taken as an individual human being, he is not stupid, and he is not a nutter.
So a few things came to mind through the course of the film....
One. The film attempts to dissect the notion of "ecology" as the notion that the biosystems on this planet are always and forever in equilibrium, and that mankind only disrupts and destroys those systems. It does a rather half-assed job of it, in my opinion. I've heard Mollison do a better job in 5 minutes, even though that may not have been his intent. This planet's biology is by no means stable, and I should hope that anyone who takes permaculture's first commandment -- observation -- seriously, would have recognized that.
Two. Certain groups of people, and certain individuals, have used environmentalism as a cloak to further aims other than environmentalism. We know this. Look at BP, for crying out loud. British Petroleum. Now their marketing campaign is "Beyond Petroleum." Does anyone really believe that?
Does anyone really believe that Al Gore lives by his words? There is an agenda afoot, and we ignore it at our own peril. Does anyone really think that cap & trade, and carbon taxes, will repair the damage we are doing to our biosphere? All of that is just a money making scheme. We already know the carbon sequestration capabilities of building topsoil. The real solutions are simple, effective, cheap, and come in little bites. That is to say, the real solutions won't make any profit for Wall Street.
Three. Climate change and global warming. I don't care about this. Why? Because all we have at this point are theories. But what do we have as fact? Pollution. Wasted energy. Wasted resources. And all the evils that come associated. Do we really have to propound theories? Or can we just deal with some ugly realities... and in the process of dealing with those realities, deal with the exact things the theorists want?
I don't think the film necessarily thrusted at supporting modern chemical-warfare agriculture. At least, I hope that's not what's behind it. But we do need to think about -- observe -- everything that comes our way. It is true that industrial agriculture is a bad thing... an unsustainable thing. I don't think any of us have any doubt about that. But it is also a fact of human life that we always learn the wrong ways of doing things before we realize the better way. It was inevitable that we should go through the bad ways before we realize that.
Four. The prior conversation degenerated rapidly into Jewish conspiracy talk. There was a time in my life I thought it was that simple. It's not. Nothing is ever simple, when it comes to history and how it happens. There is only one thing certain: we did not arrive where we are because of a random series of coincidences.
Five. I would have hoped that permaculture people (observation first) would have at least watched the referenced material before coming to conclusions... and even then, should not have drawn conclusions at all, but simply added the information to their knowledge base. I noticed that the first response to the post came in a shorter period of time than the film lasted. I can only conclude that responses came without investigation. This is not the permaculture way.
I have more, but I'll leave that for later, if this new thread goes well. It is my hope that we can keep it to the matters at hand. We cannot ignore the fact that there are sinister agendas which use environmentalism as camouflage. Let's deal with that fact, as the referenced film tries, but ultimately fails, to reveal.