On Sustainability, Permaculture, and Death Threats: Paul Wheaton interviewed for Return.life

Just published in Return.life - Paul Wheaton, as interviewed by Mason Andrus



Some of my favorite Paulisms from the article:

When asked about "sustainability":

First of all, the word sustainable means barely not dead. I feel like when we whip out the word “sustainable,” it seems like we’re talking to somebody about being naughty.

When asked about "permaculture":

Permaculture is a great word because under the permaculture umbrella comes a bunch of stuff. It’s about being way beyond organic gardening. And gardening is how I came to it and I think gardening is how most people come to it. I think the coolest things are happening under the permaculture umbrella. Under the Permaculture umbrella is natural building and alternative energy. I do a lot of roundwood timber framing. So there’s all these bits in foraging that would fall under permaculture as well. Before creating Permies, I would go out on the internet and try to talk to people about hügelkultur and I would get a lot of unkind words about hügelkultur.

When asked about "unkindness":

It boils down to environmentalism versus environmentalism. Different people have different values of environmentalism, and they have different ideas what it means, and then those ideas will conflict. Oftentimes a human being will point at another and say obey or else, and that’s where the system starts to fall apart.

He also talks about RMH, micro-heat, some cider press bits and bobs, and fun stuff like death threats.  Totally worth the read!

full article here:
return.life/2022/12/12/new-growth

Did you read it?  What did you think?

Excellent interview. I love Paul's practical, down-to-earth messaging. His point about environmentalism versus environmentalism is an important one. I don't think people realize how they sabotage progress by focusing on their perceived "correctness" of the terms. He's absolutely correct that this is how the system falls apart.

I don't think people realize how they sabotage progress by focusing on their perceived "correctness" of the terms.

This is a tough one. The thing is, progress requires motivation and good ideas. The motivated people with good ideas are the leaders, but it's often hard to get all the leaders to agree on things. And if you can get everyone to have civil discussions and be open minded and willing to compromise, things can get done. But ironically some of the qualities that create a 'leader', the motivation and innovation and refusal to take no for an answer, makes it difficult to have multiple people leading the same area of progress. It can be difficult to get just 2 people to agree on something substantial, much less a thousand or a million. This is why intentional communities (formerly communes) don't work. It's not just the drama, it's getting a group of people to be open to acting in unison for the common good. Who decides the common good? What happens as time passes and the common good shifts? The communes that were even partially successful had a charismatic leader (Steven Gaskin was one controversial example) and a remaining group content to do what that leader directed. Once there arises a serious disagreement all bets are off. Who is correct, you? Or me? And so we each see the other as the saboteur of (our own perception of) 'progress'. Human nature makes these things tricky to accomplish.
As one very small example, I just had a discussion with a friend who is house hunting. She found a place she loves, but it's part of an area with a homeowners association. One of the bylaws, or whatever they call the rules, is that houses can only be painted one of 5 colors. To overrule the rules, requires a vote of 60% of the members. Thus, as she puts it- "I'm fine with the color choices, but I'm not fine with the idea of being told what I can or cannot do by a group of people who aren't paying my mortgage!".
So how do we make environmental progress, when not only are there so many different ideas about the actual definition, but also the human nature to resist being told what that definition should be (even if we happen to agree with it)?

Beau Davidson wrote:Did you read it?  What did you think?

It seemed like a very natural, casual article. I've heard Paul discussing the same topics around the table in the Fisher Price House close to a dozen times.

I also like the fact that there's a cross-section diagram of a Rocket Mass Heater in there, and that it's easily-understandable. I hope those devices catch on everywhere.

Stephen B. Thomas wrote:

Beau Davidson wrote:Did you read it?  What did you think?

I also like the fact that there's a cross-section diagram of a Rocket Mass Heater in there, and that it's easily-understandable. I hope those devices catch on everywhere.

I agree about the cross section diagram, that is probably the easiest to understand diagram of an RMH I have ever seen.

I have also been thinking about community a lot and the "intentional" community failure rate reinforces my gut instinct... I need to build up my normal community's list of *features*

- free bicycle tune-ups maybe with a poster in the background showing how much you can save on gasoline costs by cycling to work even in just the spring and fall.
- free seeds that are adapted to the local environment instead of imported from distant continents
- a spin on a spoon mule to carve your own greenwood spoon
- cheap pizza made in a rocket oven or coffee boiled on a rocket stove
- etc etc.

I love it, Paul! I could totally hear your voice coming through the "bits" of interview. Keep up the good-news-kind-of-message!

cheap pizza made in a rocket oven or coffee boiled

Whats it cost using a earthen oven and sourdough?