Patterns, size (?) in Permaculture

(doenst really habve a title yet)

public domain: feel free to copy, modify, add, whatever





Assumption 1: Permaculture is about designing, implementing and maintaining
integrated life-support systems for humans in a sustainable way.

Assumtion 2: In order to be sustainable they have to produce more energy
than they use, use so few resources as to conserve the self healing
capabilities all the of the regional bioms and minimize the potential for
social conflicts, and provide for All human needs, not only the physical
ones.

Assumption 3: The best approach to achieve this is to learn from nature.

Observation 1: Nature always works in patterns, but also always allows for
some distortion of the pattern.

Obersvation 2: Nature uses similar patterns for similar ends, even if in
different sizes (branching of rivers, trees; egg, kraal, planet; etc.).
However, even if basic functions are similar, quite different side effects
occur in different sizes of the same pattern (e. g. branching).

Here it is opportune to look at some patterns and for what occasions nature
is using them:

The circle, the globe, the egg: this is the form that has the least
interaction with it‘s surroundings. It’s qualities are protective,
conserving, introverted. It is used to protect the "content" from
dissipation (drop of liquids, planet which at some point was a drop of
liquids) or distraction (the animal that rolles up for sleep) or from
external influences alltogether, especially if accompanied by some sort of
shell (egg, seed, cocoon). We also find this shape (often as a fragment)
where another form of minimized interaction is desired the friction
reducing sperical parts of joints or the moving eyeball (which also serves
optical multifunctions). The apparent exception, the sun, is a ball with
outward radiating points in all direction and thus a star.

The star: this is the total opposite of the globe, it is extroverted,
giving, self-exposing. However, the interaction is one-way only, and
eventually exhausting. The sun and all other stars are the example, but
actually all fire shows that pattern, but gravitationally distorted by the
upward pull of the heated gases. Also flowerheads often show this pattern,
and thus we can learn that it is not necessarily only one-way. For flowers
do want to expose themselves as to attract pollinators. Other sharp pointed
stars would be some seedpods - and those usually want to have quite some
penetrating influence on their surrounding so they will be carried around
for a while. Often they soon fall apart into numerous singular "rays" of
pointed seeds, so we see the self-exhausting quality again. In milder forms
we have the crennelations that ensure maximised interaction and exchange
with the environs. The placenta of mammals would be a good example, or
digestive organs. The reproductivity of mammals is very interesting as it
combines the protective egg and the exchange-intensity of the star in close
cooperation.

Many other apparent star patterns like the signs of impact of detonations
or an object hitting a surface are the documentation of a past intense
interaction. The iris of an eye also often shows starlike rays, and while I
am not aware that they serve any funtion there, the eye certainly is a
place of intense interaction with the invironment.

Branching: wherever something is dissipated and/or collected this seems to
be the prevalent pattern, so it’s main function is transport. The branching
of rivers and trees being the obvious macroscopic examples, but also inside
of bodies the transport of gases or liquids is done in this fashion. Also a
single ray of many a star pattern is branching which would be to expect
since stars are about transporting energies in all directions to of from a
certain point.





Observation 3: Nature readily changes the patterns if functions change
(example: lung).

Observation 4: Nature always work s in fractal (imbedded) patterns, but
when quantity (size, speed, pressure, etc.) changes, at some point the
patterns break and are replaced by others, even if the functions have not
changed (examples: flowlines of water or air, crystal grid hard to finde
examples in organic life, since there the limits are usually not
transgressed, except for behaviour patterns in relation to community
sizes).

Conclusion 1: If we choose the right patterns for our designs, nature’s
life-building force (en-entropy) will work with us, thus improve the
input-output ratio of these systems significantly. Therefor we need to
understand what patterns are best used for what purpose, and then choose
them in our designs accordingly.

Conclusion 2: We need to realize the range (or size) of functionality for
each pattern.

Different qualities as size changes (tree, river)

So we need to choose the right pattern for a job, but also in the right
size - a round bedroom is cozy, a bed in a 200 square-feet dome doenst feel
cozy; if branching trails that are meant go help us bring nutriens into the
gardens and produce into the house are too wide, sedimentation will happen
(like vacant wheelbarrows or toys) that hinder the process of
transportation suntraps have an ideal range of size,