/hobby/ - Hobby

>>7535
That, or countries voluntarily giving up their sovereignty (unlikely to happen)

>>7536
now I kinda wanna see it

>>7537
Cool, guess we may as well not even try to save the human race then.

>>7532
>How you produce your food is the matter of political importance for everyone.
How does that quote go about historical materialism? Something like Marx cleared away an overgrowth of ideology and laid bare the simple fact that people have to eat and this drives society?

>>7529
Good thing most permies are involved in collective action. There's a permie group in my area that regularly permifies each others backyards. The coming climate crises will drive this kind of thing en mass

>>7536
>>7538
Here sauce is ZP92

>>7546
Lol, I'm kinda disappoint, I was expecting like leafy plant/root feet

Still respect from one cropped-porn poster to another

Why is this thread in hobby now?

>>7647
See >>7525
>>7527
It's more of a hobby than a political discussion. 90% of the posts here are just questions, answers and arguments about planting methods and plants and other content.

>>7613
GIVE SOME FUCKING SAUCE

>>7951
REPOST REQUEST AND IMAGE IN FURRY THREAD!

So I've got a pretty small backyard with a garden and I grow a bunch of different plants indoors, specifically weed which has a lot of leftover leaves, branches, stems and roots.

Because of this I want to try indoor composting, what methods would you people recommend? I'm leaning towards vermicomposting and bokashi seems interesting, but I don't know much about it.

>>9147
And I know this isn't fully permaculture related but I want to get into it more, plus I didn't see other threads to post this in.

Oh also I wanna do indoor composting because I have long winters, outdoor composting is only practical for like 7 months

How do I best turn a piece of regular lawn into a space usable for gardening while still maintaining the soil composition and such?

>>9391
Cover it in mulch and/or compost and plant on top. Maybe cover it with cardboard or newspaper first before the winter to kill the grass.

This guy has some instructional videos showing you how to do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvnNStmB1Q

>>9444
thanks
I always thought the way to do it was just tearing off or digging up the top layer of grass, but I guess even that messes with the soil

>>9453
There's debate over best practices but generally it's best not to disrupt the soil more than necessary.

A bit of a long shot but does anyone have a spanish pdf of this ,i only found a Portuguese one ,or anything related to permaculture in Cuba would be greatly appreciated

>>7221
>but perhaps we should consider that 7 billion ( now going on 8 billion ) people is a little bit over carrying capacity
Lmao no it's not you Malthusian fucktard, the earth can sustain many times our current population.

https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ is a useful service that you guys might want to use or take part in (sell extra veggies or something).

>>10378
>the earth can sustain many times our current population.
show proof

>>7525
>>7613
>>7546
Got made into a banner candidate lol
>>>/gulag/7919

>>12730
Do a google search, it's not that hard; first result
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
>inb4 'muh planet support only a few billion'
That is shit published by either rich fucks/their cronies like Business Insider, who are paid to say what fits their agenda of depopulation, because they hate the poor and uncontrolled workers who don't listen to them like unconditional robots.

>>12732
lol that article doesn't support what you're saying at all, maybe you should actually read it

I don’t know is that a good idea to post this on that board, but I will try…

For some time I thought about the rightness to renounce certain forms of consumption as part of the fight against capitalism. I am able to understand that there are things that cannot be done without buying as new products, generating profit for private entrepreneurs, and they are needed in today's world. However, in my opinion, a consistent socialist should not feed this monster more than necessary. There is no NEED to buy an iPhone, coffee at Starbucks or a burger at McDonalds. It is worth mentioning some tips on how to survive in this mess. Every socialist should, in some sense be an ascetic. I've been getting more interested in gardening, and I was very disappointed to learn that most of the garden hoses have lead in them or other toxic chemicals that leach into the water, making it unsafe to drink. While searching for a perfectly safe garden hose, (which are nearly impossible to find), I discovered a non-profit website that has a lot of warnings on toxic chemicals in common consumer products. Do inform yourself so you can better protect yourself from hidden sources of pollution.

https://www.ecocenter.org/healthy-stuff/

- You don't need a top-of-the-line smartphone if you have a laptop. A regular cell phone should be enough, today they have an internet browser installed to check basic things. And running applications from android or Ios is possible through PC emulators. Android applications can be downloaded without a Google account here:

-You don't need new clothes. Today's second hand shops have good quality textiles. It is worth mentioning that today's clothes are made of low quality fabrics and fibers that tend to be easily damaged. And the dyes used in them are often harmful to the skin and are poorly primed, which causes the color to wash quickly. It is worth mentioning here that it is good not to wear clothes with visible manufacturer logos. Why should you be an ad as a socialist? It is worth decontaminating them after buying clothes. They can be boiled in a suitable powder or treated with an ozone generator (highly recommended during a pandemic).

- Do you furnish the house? Take a look around the local flea market for old furniture. Often, such furniture is made of pure wood (not woodlike materials), and their presence and condition proves their strength. Be careful only on furniture that may have a bark beetle. Removing it with special chemistry is an additional expense.

- Food. Look for small food stores, these are usually run by the family, or if you live in the countryside you can get along with local farmers running small farms. It is worth having your own garden. The best idea if you live in a city is to grow your own perennial herbs in pots.

- You don't need a car. Today's public transport will take you anywhere you want, cheaper than if you bought fuel every time. However, this issue is very subjective and depends on many other factors.

- Many electronics today are worth buying as used, often these antiques work for a very long time. For example, I'm currently using a 20-year-old microwave. The only devices that are not worth investing in are old computers and all Smart electronics due to their collection of quite sensitive data. Many people think that to get rid of the virus from a used computer, it is enough to replace the hard disk. This is a mistake - there are also viruses in the bios.

- Use open source software. Many of them are doing great as an alternative to commercial software.

- Cook dishes instead of ordering takeout. Use a Toaster Oven instead of a Microwave.

- It is worth thinking about the production of cleaning products, it is not difficult. However, if you can't, then you should think about using ordinary bar soap for a bath or shower. And if you need something to clean your windows, a vinegar and water mixture is all you need. For washing the bathroom - baking soda. For washing clothes - a laundry ball, often as effective as powder and less wasteful

Do you have any other recommendations, comrades?

Link https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/

>>12733
It does though.
>the human population will stabilize between 9 billion and 10 billion.
And the article is only assuming current methods of agriculture and ignoring both Permaculture and hydroponic aquaculture.
See >>7314
>>7316
https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2019/1/6/how-hydroponics-can-help-feed-the-world-while-saving-water

>>12738
>the human population will stabilize between 9 billion and 10 billion.
>the earth can sustain many times our current population.
MATH NIGGA MATH 10 BILLION AINT MANY TIMES

>>12739
Like I said, 10 billion by CONVENTIONAL methods. Hydroponics and Permaculture is so fucking productive and effective that it can feed a lot more people than traditional farming methods.

“Dear Joseph Vissarionovich!

The Soviet system has transformed the small undertaking which I started on a mean garden plot 60 years ago for breeding new fruit varieties and creating new plant organisms into a vast Union-wide centre of industrial fruit breeding and scientific plant breeding, with thousands of hectares of orchards, magnificent laboratories and facilities and dozens of highly skilled researchers.

And myself, a lone experimenter, unrecognised and ridiculed by the official savants and bureaucrats of the tsarist Department of Agriculture, the Soviet system and the Party which you lead have made me the director and organiser of experiments with hundreds of thousands of plants.

The Communist Party and the working class have given me everything I need – everything an experimenter can desire for his work. The dream of my whole life is coming true: the valuable new fruit-plant varieties which I have bred have gone from the experimental plots, not into the possession of a few kulak money-bags, but into the far-flung orchards of the collective and state farms, displacing old inferior varieties of low yield. The Soviet Government has conferred upon me the highest reward a citizen of our country can receive, by naming the town of Kozlov the town of Michurinsk, awarding me the Order of Lenin and publishing my works on an impressive scale.

For all this, as a token of my gratitude, devotion and love, all of my 60 years’ work is dedicated to you, the beloved leader of the working masses who are building a new world, a world of joyous labour.

Dear Joseph Vassarionovich! I am 80 years of age, but the creative energy surging among the millions of workers and peasants of the Soviet Union fills me too, old man that I am, with eagerness to live and work under your leadership for the good of the socialist development of our proletarian state.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мичурин,_Иван_Владимирович

https://humus.livejournal.com/4744494.html

Wrote an article on one of the Soviet Environmental projects and upon mentioning Permaculture I realized the article has not yet been created. Hope you guys can get started making one.
(click create page)
https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

Anybody else see the documentary Kiss the Ground? It's about how conventional farming destroys soil and although permaculture doesn't get mentioned, it does talk about related things like agroforestry and no-till.

It's got some hokey liberal shit in it at times but IMO it does a pretty good job explaining important concepts to normies who have zero scientific literacy.

>>19342
>critical of some Darwin's views because they were Malthusian rubbish. Having read Origin of Species, this can be stated to be true to an extent
Having read Darwin myself, I'm calling shenanigans on this claim. I invite you to support it with evidence.

>>12971
Sounds pretty based, though I argue that tilling/plowing can be useful as long as you take that into account and make adjustments to prevent topsoil loss.

>>12974
What I mean by it being true to an extent, is that the idea of environmental pressures and things like carrying capacity can be taken to mean that said carrying capacity cannot be raised by conscious human efforts or that culling is inevitable and necessary. It's less Darwin being Malthusian, and more how it can be interpreted that way.

>>19342
Some more
Read: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/lysenko.html
Also: https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html (was deleted), so use this link https://web.archive.org/web/20190111001548/https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html

A short summary: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/ly-tl-cv.html

>IN SHORT: The Three Main Bones of Contention regarding the things TD Lysenko REALLY said (these are given in greater detail elsewhere):

>One technical point: back when Lysenko talked about (what we NOW call) cytoplasm - he literally did not use that word and neither did the geneticists. The word they used to refer to ANYTHING that was not the nucleus of the cell was "living protoplasm." They could see little granules fleeting by in the microscope, or corpuscles floating by. They used THESE words. Of course, when I read this, I realize they are all talking about the cytoplasm; so some of those granules Lysenko mentioned DID INDEED carry important factors involved in heredity. Geneticists did claim it was all in the nucleus, not outside the nucleus at all. Also, it was chemists that discovered nucleic acids, NOT the geneticists. Geneticists talked of factors or elements of heredity: genes. Mitochondria also has genes, but they are not human genes, they are bacterial DNA!, yet they drive ALL OUR metabolism. These mitochondria are NOT in the nucleus of the cell! This is a technicality over which some might quibble.

>1. Geneticists insisted that heredity was carried forth exclusively by what is inside the nucleus of a cell (chromosomes) and that the rest of what is in the cytoplasm of the cell was just junk. This was called the "Chromosome Theory of Heredity." Lysenko did deny the THEORY, but he never denied the importance of chromosomes. DNA was not known of in the 1930's. Lysenko did NOT dispute that heredity was carried forth by chromosomes, but he insisted that the WHOLE of the cell, CYTOPLASM and all, was involved in the heredity process. Lysenko did NOT reject the importance of CHROMOSOMES, he even counted doubling of chromosomes in plants (as did geneticists). What he objected to was the dogma that "heredity was SOLELY contained in the chromosome." He turned out to be right: a lot of factors of heredity are in the cytoplasm of cells, not located in the nucleus! Geneticists claimed it was ALL contained in the chromosomes which are IN the nucleus. Lysenko disagreed, he was right. Ergo, the geneticists were excessively dogmatic in insisting they were right and declaring this that and the other. The discovery of DNA doesn't change this: Mitochondrial DNA, having the DNA of a bacterium, is in the CYTOPLASM of cells, not in nucleus. Without that, the rest wouldn't even work! For Mitochondria and how the discovery of how this evolved and works, see Lynn Margulis's works.

>2. Geneticists insisted on pure bred lines and claimed these were the best. Lysenko insisted on occasionally mixing the pure lines with wild varieties or else the pure lines would degenerate. Lysenko was 100% right about this. The head geneticist, Vavilov, admitted he was right, but the real battle over this carried on outside of plant breeding, in the realm of racist politics. Prior to this claim, backed by actions with plants, the geneticists had not yet reached the phase where they went "nuts" over what Lysenko said. This claim made them go nuts.

>3. Geneticists insisted that there is strict competition in the survival of the fittest, between species and within one species. Lysenko disagreed with this whole idea of "within one species" (intraspecific) competition and showed that this idea justifies Western Imperialism and exploitation of others by a ruling class (the fittest in the game of survival). He turned out to be right with Margulis topping the cake: she's a Nobel Prize winner. It even turns out that there is far less competition between species than had been theorized before. This phase got the geneticists to claim Lysenko was anti-Darwin and the battle raged on anew.

>Lysenko NEVER said that variations occur, changes in heredity occur, due to "use" and "disuse" of various organs. He NEVER said that. He was not a Lamarckian, knew what Lamarckism was, explained it and explained why it was wrong! He said changes were due to assimilation and dissimilation and focused on the metabolism and natural selection. Today, "assimilation" is known about and called GENETIC assimilation. Yet one doesn't have to know what a gene is to understand the assimilation. This last thing is part of the dung-heap of nonsense put into Lysenko's mouth by his enemies. They un-explain what he said, they MAKE IT into something stupid and then call it Lamarckian.

>The rest of the nonsense they claim Lysenko said is either pure lies or they take puns and jokes he made and pretend he was serious. Another dung-heap of slanders they throw at Lysenko have to do with the NKVD.

>What Lysenko was actually saying is very complex. What the geneticists wanted was something very simple-minded and Mendelian. Well, things are not simple and MOST things do not abide by the Mendelian 3:1 at all. What Lysenko discovered about vernalization was not known before and has turned out to be VERY important, it was not simple at all. Cold slows growth of a plant, but it makes the plant vernalize which then sets off a new DEVELOPMENT in the plant; ergo vernalization can't be growth: it's development which is something different. He used a very high reasoning on this. His phasic theory of development was also very heavy, not simple at all. Those who mock it out or try to ridicule him did NOT understand it at all, they are simple-minded and stupid. And they are liars that have only the desire to ridicule this man BECAUSE he was strongly Marxist and Stalinist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Mechanisms_resembling_Lamarckism

>>12978
>make adjustments to prevent topsoil loss
How would one do that? I planted some stuff in a small plot of land this summer and in preparing the soil for seeds and stuff, I dug up all the grass, which I assume is damaging to the soil composition. How can I reestablish the balance of the soil?

>>12978
Historical note
When Darin read his copy of Das Kapital he got to the MCM CMC section noted in his diary that if poverty is due to human error not nature then great are our sins and wrote a letter to Marx thanking him for his contributions to science

>>12978
>tilling/plowing can be useful
Based on what? You can direct sow basically anything afaik, and there are machines that do that at the same scale as conventional ploughs (they showed one in the documentary).

>>12989
>How can I reestablish the balance of the soil?
Build more soil. Let organic matter fall there and decompose. Trees make their own soil with fallen leaves for example. If you leave them to their own device they will smother the grass under them and kill it. For future reference that's how to kill your grass best. Smother it with newspaper or something. You just have to do it thick enough so nothing can grow through the cracks/holes. Then cover it with soil/compost/mulch. Best to do this in the fall/winter so the grass dies off and you have regular ground for spring.

>>12989
I know a bean farmer from Haiti, skilled man. THe way he did it was to clear a plot of land, plow it and plant the beans. He removed all bushes and trees inside, but kept a thick set of trees and bushes around it, trapping soil and moisture and helping negte winds. He topped it off by having the beas grow close together and having their roots hold the soil together, only pulling them out when planting new ones after Winter.

Also crop rotation is important; using 4 fields (or dividing them in-4) wheat in the first field, turnips in the second, barley in the third and clover in the fourth. Then rotate clockwise so that what grows in field/section 4 and clover grows in section 1 etc. The clover returns nutrients to the soil and turnips help brek it up for wheat and barley (or whatever you want to plant).

>>12991
Based on centuries of people doing this successfully?
>You can direct sow basically anything
It's harder and less efficient unless you're directly planting already grown plants.
>machines that do that
they also till the soil somewhat as well m8, this isn't grass.

>>12990
*Darwin

>>12993
>Based on centuries of people doing this successfully?
Kind of like saying that people have been doing medicine successfully for centuries tbh. History is full of terrible famines.
>It's harder and less efficient unless you're directly planting already grown plants.
It's not though? Tilling requires much more energy because you're turning over so much soil to do it.
>they also till the soil somewhat as well m8, this isn't grass.
Putting something in the ground is going to disrupt the soil to some degree, but it's minimally disruptive to inject seeds, especially in comparison to traditaional practices of turning over the soil and broadcasting.

>>12994
>>12990
Sauce on Darwin's letter?

>>13002
>Kind of like saying that people have been doing medicine successfully for centuries
If it works then it works.
>famines
Mostly because of misuse and abuse of land over-reaching as well as exploitation and natural factors.
>Tilling requires much more energy because you're turning over so much soil to do it
which is why plows have changed, to have a share, Moldboard, Colter and other improvements.
>it's minimally disruptive to inject seeds
seeds don't really care about disruption though, the point is to trap soil and prevent it from being torn away by wind and water run-off, something which modern mass farmers don't do.

>>13004
>If it works then it works.
The point is it doesn't. It's not good enough and it degrades the land.
>the point is to trap soil and prevent it from being torn away by wind and water run-off
WRONG. Soil is not a substance, like water. It's an ecosystem with structure and the more you disrupt that structure the more you destabilize it. You don't have to worry about runoff if the soil is stable to begin with.

>>13006
Thanks m8

>>13005
>It's not good enough and it degrades the land
Like I said, depends on your method. If you just till the land and nothing else, no shit it'll fuck things up, which is why you make sure to not leave it to be dispersed
> Soil is not a substance, like water. It's an ecosystem with structure and the more you disrupt that structure the more you destabilize it.
Soil is dug up and churned by nature all the time, it also gets washed away all the time, the reason meadows don't wash away near streams is because the grass is tightly holding the soil and the meadows tend to have trees retaining moisture and keeping out Dry Winds

>>12983
Very interesting, thank you anon.

>>12737
>most of the garden hoses have lead in them or other toxic chemicals that leach into the water
How big of a thing is this actually??

bump