Well, yes is the easiest answer, we have been working so hard to put scientifically what permaculture says poetically. Agroforestry is a recognized agricultural technique in science, whereas permaculture is mostly viewed as 'feelings' and handwaving.
When you start getting four or more different yields out of a plot of land (we have plots with 12+) it takes a lot of extra work to keep all the relevant data recorded, and data entry is suddenly not an entry level position.
We have the most success with a nitrogen fixing tree and handful of nitrogen fixing ground covers being used around modified commercial croppings.
The point is, there are people working to solve these problems, and the math of what is being done doesn't always apply to what can be done.
I see, ok, so it is a formal definition of the ideas that permaculture provides a less scientific definitions for already, perhaps.
Yes, I am clear that the problems of this kind are solved by simply realising that we need to operate as natural humans which live in harmony with nature - which means understanding and respecting nature's intelligence and balance. Learning what combinations work best can be fun and exciting - which is an entirely opposite approach to that of the death/greed machine that pollutes and exploits at every opportunity.
Can you explain further what you mean by:
?
Thanks
Absolutely, I love permaculture, and when I found it I was so excited but quickly got ridiculed by many more 'scientific minded' practitioners. Agroforestry is only one concept among many that permaculture provides. And the marriage of the efforts continues, obviously we all want to build an abundant future (or at least I assume the best intentions by all ;)
I guess, in terms of 'the math', its not the first time that the current math has been used to explain how something 'has to be done', when in reality the future has a whole new calculus. The original Malthusian calculations assured us that we couldn't get to where we are today, but obviously here we are. And math and science tend to simplify so many things, can it even account for the change if everyone started growing in pots on their window sills or if we start growing meat in laboratories or a million other unforseen technologies and possibilities?
Love and Light to you!
I see, ok - yes, it is unfortunate that the degree of egotism present in much of 'science' has led so many to deny that the scientific method doesn't include ridicule and ad hominem attack! Much of the 'advances' made 'by' science are really just ideas taken from the 'poetic' reality and then reformulated and more precisely defined.. Though not all, obviously.
As a software engineer and student of sacred geometry, I know that math CAN be used to account for pretty much everything, but to do so requires deep awareness of underlying principles that mainstream science continues to reject - hence their uncertainty. I'd say it is possible to calculate the effects of every person becoming self reliant - in fact, not really that tough - but is there any grant money in doing so? ;)
Bless sings to you aswell!