All 24 entries tagged Permaculture
View all 25 entries tagged Permaculture on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Permaculture at Technorati | There are no images tagged Permaculture on this blog
October 03, 2014
December 19, 2012
Just caught my eye on a new documentary, called Chasing Ice which sadly, from the trailer, looks no better than iceberg porn. Yes, the icecaps are melting, yes you’re doing something interesting in trying to solve the problem of communicating scale and speed to people who are used to an instant culture, but what exactly have you ended up with? A load of decontextualised ice and water, looking inordinately dramatic and pretty as it moves. “Look ma, another’s going!” “Ooooooooh.”
This reminds me of the Greenpeace helicopter footage of the tar sands forests, a 45min documentary of evergreen pine forests, mists and clouds, and then evil – though still pretty and dramatic – mining projects and scarred landscapes. “We did this?” “Cool!” “Yeah, but think about the environment, dude!” “Uh, ok.” “Ok.” “Still looks pretty cool, huh?” “Maybe a bit.”
It smacks just a little too much of lowest common denominator targeting, of not having the means to tell the narrative we need to tell, because we’re so used to telling stories about pretty nature and the awesomeness of humanity because we know how to fall in love and have emotions and shit. We’re writing atrocity with the gentility of a romcom, we’re the barbarians Adorno was trying to correct us from remaining.
White Noise Syndrome(WNS): in DeLillo’s novel, the middle classes walk up the hill with sandwiches and drinks (no doubt stored in plastic bottles, and left behind on the hillside) to watch the beautiful sunsets created by the noxious cloud from the nearby factory. The problem of disconnect occurs: should we interrupt certain behavioural practices because the origins of the phenomena that trigger a certain response is known to be negative?
I’m more analogy than depth at the moment; another occurs: changing diet for political reasons. I never really changed my culinary response to the taste of meat – I find it politically abhorrent to be fuelling an industry that is destructive, unsustainable, cruel and driven by profit over envrionmental issues. But I still salivate in response to the smell of certain cooking meats. I have had to train myself to think against this response, slowly. (But then, owning a particularly murderous cat, I have to deal with the killing of small birds and animals on a regular basis. Some time earlier this year I had to terminate a badly wounded robin, which I still haven’t fully recovered from. I don’t consider myself squeamish about this, but neither would I consider cooking and eating roadkill, or any kind of meat now. I would find it hard to think my way around treating the cat as a meal, if I went back to meat-eating.)
You could say it is like fiddling while Rome burns, this WNS. But that might deny the specifics of the environmental problem. Fiddling is doing something impractical for the situation. The activity of going to a disaster site to document the event is more like smoking a cigarette and staring out at the burning city. There is the issue of bearing witness to catastrophic events, of not looking away from the disaster, but there’s also a very different question of agency.
If it is within one’s power to change the disaster, then fiddling is an aggressive action. If it is not within one’s power to prevent the ice caps from melting, then filming the calving ice is permissible, in my books: you may as well document the end of humanity, as just ignore it and get on with whatever you were doing, or do something you’ve not done before because, you know, it’ll be your last chance.
The problem really is whether we believe we have agency or not, in the face of climate change. There are a number of options in this regards:
1. We have no agency. No one does. Inshallah/God willing/by the great Earth Mother, we’ll get through this, else it’s the divine will that we be destroyed.
2. We have no agency. Agency lies with regulatory bodies, with the powerful – the Kyoto Protocols and subsequent meetings, with governments and their ability to influence corporations.
3. Agency lies beyond individuals and even democratically elected governments, in corporations.
4. We still have agency, despite the actions of the powerful – they are humans too, and can be convinced to agree with us.
5. We are solely responsible for enacting change, on an individual level; unless we act ourselves, then we cannot expect anyone else to act. Lead by example.
The point I’m trying to make here is, either we decide that there is nothing we can do (point 1), or we decide there is still hope (points 2-5). The latter options outweigh the former: in other words, there are many more opportunities to be hopefully, than to give up. Giving up is deciding to lose faith in humanity, to cease to act in relation to climate change.
If the makers of Chasing Ice are acting in what they feel is a direction against climate catastrophe, then they must believe in one of the options 2-5, or else another that at least believes in agency lying somewhere in reach of human grasp. Sure, there’s a chance they are nihilists documenting the end of the species, but the rhetoric on the website seems to deny this.
Particularly the Make a Difference part of the site, which I take serious issue against. Any serious climate activist would see the points being made are a complete waste of time.
I could go through it point by point, but it basically says, “Live the same life you are living, just turn down the heating and aircon a little bit.” Like, “Mow your lawn with an electric instead of gas mower.” Really?
I’m so angry now I’m going to start swearing. Switching from gas to electricity, in any of the contexts listed, will not help. Also, how can you point out in the first section that “Plastics are made from petroleum” so cut them out, when you then recommend you buy a new mower, new power strips with energy saving modes, and so on? What the fuck are those made from? Carbon-reducing vegetable matter?
The section on transportation really does my head in; there is only one reasonable response: get rid of your car and change your lifestyle so you don’t need one. That’s it. That’s the only solution. There is no other significant way to reduce the carbon emissions of your transportation needs. Bicycles. No, really. “What about…?” Fucking hybrid cars? Really? Fuck off.
Ok, deep breath.
I think the point I am trying to make is, WNS is indicated by a number of symptoms, including a hypocritical approach to delivering a message on the issue of climate change and the kind of responses we should take to reduce the scale of change. The act of capturing the beauty of events relating to global warming, or ecological devastation, isn’t, in itself, a symptom; it does, however, require a holistic examination of the politics of the documentary, in order to determine whether the intention is to be effective, or simply to cash in.
I don’t intend to offer any financial help to Chasing Ice until I’m convinced that they know what message they’re putting across. I appreciate they may be targeting a soft message at a skeptical (note my US spelling – it’s an exclusively US-targeted film, from what I can see) audience, but aiming for a lowest common denominator is a definite syndrome of WNS; climate activists need to stop patronising audiences with condescending rubbish. It is happening; if you deny it is happening then a soft message isn’t going to do anything to you. And all those pretty images – they might even entertaining you, which is far more than you deserve.
On a side note, some of this thinking came up when talking yesterday with fellow eco-researcher, Chris Maughan. We’re running a conference in March, called Planetary Cancer focusing on food security, Marxist ecology and ecocriticism. Chris commented, in relation to a paper by Imre Szeman, published earlier this year, called Crude Aesthetics: The Politics of Oil Documentaries “Why didn’t we get any submissions looking at the politics of food documentaries?” Or more generally: why isn’t anyone critically examining the politics of representation around climate change, in the way that we want?
I guess they are, but we haven’t found them yet. Until we do, we’ll have to do the work ourselves. (I guess that puts me somewhere between 4 and 5 on my earlier scale.)
February 22, 2012
Reading this John Bellamy Foster stuff is both highly depressing and highly inspirational. In creative terms, there's a drive that stems from desperation. Not just in the Dostoevskyan sense of, 'Oh shit, deadline', but also in the craving arising from having to read repetitive, depressed ecomarxist theorists, for something imaginative, creative, lucid, original.
At the same time, here's what Foster takes 260 pages to finally come to, about the social ecological overhaul:
the new system... must put the provision of basic human needs--clean air, unpolluted water, safe food, adequate sanitation, social transport, and universal healthcare and education, all of which require a sustainable relation to the earth--ahead of all other needs and wants.
Let's break that down into a concrete list for social revolution. In order for the Great Transition to happen, people will need to:
(In short term transition phase)
1. Seize control of the means of food production.
2. Seize control of the means of energy production.
3. Seize control of the means of food, energy and water distribution.
4. Revolutionise methods of production in these areas along ecologically sustainable lines.
(And in longer term transitions)
5. Seize control of sewage management and redirect city waste into natural fertiliser production.
6. Develop ecologically-balanced systems of education and health.
7. Develop a system of maintenance for all systems, a monitoring loop, which is in itself ecologically neutral, or positive, in balance and process.
Methods/systems for ecological sustainability exist already in all these areas, but are anti-capitalist by nature, so overlooked for their lack of profitability. They would merely need to be championed and implemented by people - in fact, some areas of Britain are already working along these lines, divorcing their internal systems from the capitalist production flow.
One or two algorithms/data sets would need to back up the transition. In particular, a ratio of land needed - according to permacultural methods by regional specificity - per person, for a basic balanced diet. Secondarily, a social accounting that would provide vital services of health, education, sanitation and so on, by unit of society, which doesn't fall into obvious traps of over-abstraction (i.e. an alternative metabolic rift to that of capitalism) or communalist issues of redistribution and misapplication of personal skills. If a given unit - a village, say - requires one doctor, one biodigestor, one x, one y, etc. per z population, all well and good, but what if there's a major shortfall in, say, doctors? Do you demand the village idiot retrain as a surgeon? Or the spare surgeon retrain as a sanitation supervisor? Certain problems in social accounting in communal systems have not been solved for me, from my reading. Utopianism is rife.
Interesting comparative example of rice versus wheat growing in Foster, suggests Europe will need to move to a rice-based diet in order to maximise calories per hectare, along the Fukuoka Method of growing. However, there is a risk of monoculture in this that may not be effective.
This all said, the transition will probably require an unacceptable degree of 'Barbarization'. I've not yet read the Global Scenario Group's document, 'Great Transition', which outlines the main pitfalls of social upheaval. Foster isn't particularly helpful on this document, given his militant ideological stance.
Alternatives, then, would involve democratic transitioning - like transition towning, but taken beyond just food: transition of food and energy resources by area which see villages and region literally cutting off from capitalist providers of electricity, gas and food. The reduction of overheads and the need to only pay for council services could see a form of privatisation into communal management, particularly of waste systems, so that soil nutrients are valuably regenerated, even positively. Food and energy supplies by region could therefore be freely distributed to residents, with growth carefully managed to maintain a positive soil-nutrient return ratio, either through fallowing/rotation or similar.
Water management is something I can't fully encompass in my head yet - suggestions welcome if anyone's reading. Clean water supplies are limited and water tables are essential to biodiversity, so rainwater and river harvesting would have to be very carefully managed. Resevoir systems, grey water recycling, etc. Every house would have to become a resevoir of sorts, in balance with groundwater reserves. I've been to houses in Herefordshire villages which are disconnected from a mains supply, and their personal wells have run dry, forcing a switch to bottled water.
Anyway, early thoughts about unsustainability and untenable revolutions, but the possibility of outcomes. Cities look doomed from any which way I look at them.
February 15, 2012
John Bellamy Foster, in a recent book called 'The Ecological Revolution', makes a lovely, (self-)redemptive statement about innovation's relation to capitalism:
To associate the drive to innovation exclusively with capitalism is wrongly to attribute to a specific economic formation the creative drive of human beings and human culture and civilization in general.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that was the line I was teetering on in my last entry. To say that capitalism is a model that invades all instances of characteristics that signifies its presence, is to suggest capitalism has become a substitute for species which invented it, which holds those characteristics. In other words, it is to argue that humanity = capitalism. Which is dumb. But that's what you get for reading a blog about someone's thoughts being written out loud.
At the same time, some joy in allowing creativity permission to try and bypass inherent flaws in capitalism, to come to a way of human society that is permaculturally defined. Something my co-conspirator/considerer in PhD land recently discussed with me (ta Chris Maughan), was whether there's a way of tackling the Jevons Paradox (or Jevons Effect) in a different way.
Something I noticed in reading Foster/Wikipedia on the Jevons Paradox, is that there's an implication of given wealth available for purchasing energy. If consumption of energy increases as energy costs are reduced by technology to meet 100% of the altered price, then it sounds to me like people are spending the same amount of money on energy as they had already planned for, taking up as much as is available at the new, lower price, and perhaps being less frugal, or not being monitored in how they use those new amounts.
Hard to say, but here's a concrete example. Your factory (house, barn, etc.) needs 1 lump of coal a day to heat. You see from current markets that you'll need to spend £1 per lump of coal, so you budget for £365 for the year ahead. In March someone invents a new spade that shovels coal at a lower labour cost. You can now buy two lumps of coal for your £1. Instead of spending £182.50 (half your annual budget) on coal for the year and blowing the rest on a pub crawl, you spend the budget you had (this is a common issue with forecasting and accounting, especially in not-for-profit or charitable organisations, though private households, especially lower income ones, would have more freedom to regulate and more need for redirecting savings elsewhere): the money's there anyway, so use it on what it's for. You end up with a two year supply of energy. Hooray!
Do you budget for two years or, with the sudden influx of fuel, double your own output, or stay open later, or, given the big pile of coal you've now got, be more wasteful in your fuel consumption?
A portion of society does have a use-it-or-lose-it budget allocation, given at the start of the year. There are incentives, therefore, to make sure you spend all the money in a particular pool (overheads, etc.) within a financial year, else that budget may be reduced in future. This can go wrong, as there are fluctuations in energy uses, prices, needs, according to climatic averages, unexpected spikes in weather, etc. In other words, you would always hope for more in a budget pool than you're going to need, although financially speaking a surplus in a budget implies money not being put to good use. Margins, etc.
This whole system, the idea of the Jevons Paradox/effect, is unrealistically detached from the reality of socially necessary labour time. It takes a particular amount of time and labour to dig up a lump of coal, currently. A technological innovation might reduce the cost of time/labour in some way, but won't resolve how much energy you can get from a lump of coal (assuming 'lump' has a corresponding value on a metrical scale or something). Take this across to essential resources - water and food - and you can see a problem.
It takes a fixed amount of time and water and sunlight to grow a potato. These factors can't change without major scientific advances in GM cropping, or perhaps the sun just getting a little bit bigger for no apparent reason, which isn't going to happen because we want it to, so don't plan for it. So the only reasonable target left for savings in potato production is on labour.* This is of course where exploitation and the metabolic rift emerges.
But what if - talking creatively with Chris, now - we invented a new measure for this bottom line of value? How many 'ecos' does it take to grow a potato? Measure that in terms of human resources and put a tag on it. Protect the most basic needs of a human being: by nutrients, not by something that looks juicy but is full of water; by shelter; by health needs; how many ecos does it take to treat a cold, or a broken leg? A government-regulated system separate to free market systems will ease the transition to a sustainable market economy, from where we can go to a sustainable society.
One point to JB Foster I will make here, having not read enough yet, but hey-ho: no fully-signed-up ecologist would reject a solution to the current metabolic rift/antagonism between capitalism as world economy and world ecology, if capitalism were to come up with it. Capitalism's drive for new markets, for innovation, is a defining characteristic and has the potential to come up with a solution - even a solution that will destroy itself in the process. While Foster very rightly identifies reasons why capitalism is positioned against finding an ecological solution and is highly unlikely to do so, there's no reason to say that it won't do so by accident. Fingers crossed, eh?
* Human labour is also has a fixed cost, humans are a part of nature, and labour is a resource. The number of people available to work, the amount of money needed locally from a task to buy potatoes to survive to the next day... If you reduce labour costs below a certain point, your labour force might well drop dead. This has happened, still happens and is the side to capitalism that no morally aware human can ignore without being evil and sick.
February 08, 2012
Solutions or responses welcome.
Current developments in Marxist ecology point to how the capitalist project, with its issue of the metabolic rift, is arriving at a dead end. Naomi Klein's identification of disaster capitalism, in The Shock Doctrine, is one example of how capitalism is reaching its limit in geographical exploitation of resources and now has to manufacture crises in the supply chain of resources to generate market instability and open up new markets.
New markets is a buzzphrase at the high end of free market capitalist systems. New resources, new ecologies; these are overlooked in favour of the global hunt for the most profitable area of exploitation, which can only grow the rift between the human/nature dynamic. Yet ecology's response, as a perspective, is now one that increasingly not only accepts, but asserts, the fact that humanity = nature, is a subset of. So we are only destroying ourselves as part of the planet we are destroying.
Recently, though (OK, about ten minutes ago) I've begun to have doubts about the methodology of Marxist ecologists. The method of capitalist critique is one that I've seen elsewhere, such as in union battles with employers. Searching through law, through social structures, for a valid critical approach to defend workers' rights, union legal teams often have to fall back on an approach that they hope will create valid change, or, more than likely, deter continued detrimental change. So, for example, in recent UK battles, on a local level, unions are attempting to exploit Health & Safety laws as a way to find leverage in increasingly hostile-to-employees Employment Law. Prior to that, in my limited union experience, the struggle centred on cases of unfair dismissal, harrassment and so on, but these laws, as I understand it, have been tightened to protect employers.
So, a model arises in which unions select a cause, one that is effectively within the scope of a 'new market' in terms of being a battleground that hasn't been fought over before. The problem as I see it lies in how the environmental movement, by developing into social ecology, has merely found a new market to exploit in its anti-capitalist battleground.
In other words, from this perspective, the anti-capitalist movement in the form of the ecological movement, is adopting a capitalist model by which to launch its attack on capitalism. This feels as much a psychological conditioning in myself, however: that I am trained to read through capitalist structures, and training further to identify capitalist structures. Yet I can't help feeling, underlying all this, that the futility of the alternative PR project is futile because it isn't drawing on an alternative to capitalism: ancient religious fundaments, or perhaps something so antiquated - barter systems, foraging, similar social structures that are improbable in light of current population scales - that the new approach will defy capitalist structures utterly.
It's easy to think yourself into a bind when you haven't read enough, or the right books. But all this unloading of chest-weights is helpful while you're on the road to change.
October 26, 2011
An exciting discovery on campus this week! Warwick's dark satanic halls have buried within them a green and pleasant bit of wild field, upon which hath been demarcated a patch for growing food. Somewhere southeast of Tocil and Jack Martin Residences, or east from the lakes below the Health Centre, you'll find a fenced off patch of land for students and staff to use as an allotment.
Nick Hillard, UoW's Environmental Manager, has given that land over to student societies to manage. He has even offered, should the project begin to thrive, to double the space available. While I was down there last Sunday, pretending to be young enough to dig a trench, a few students showed up with white buckets of kitchen scraps, to add to the compost heap.
One of the people managing the space, Carla Sarrouy, is also a Master Gardener and is all set to help train up students and staff to make use of the space, and their own gardens, for growing vegetables in a sustainable way. There'll be a meeting soon - probably on Sunday this weekend, to talk through new plans for the space.
At the moment there's a need for postgraduate and staff volunteers, as the academic year doesn't match up with growing timetables, particularly if you're fallowing in winter. At the same time, perhaps some winter growing could happen, if every kitchen on campus got rigorous about bringing kitchen waste over.
Also, I've been thinking about the kind of teaching that could take place in a garden like that. Imagine, for example, a class on the 'Dig for Victory' campaign, combined with actual gardening? Somewhat gimmicky, maybe. What about reading Edward Thomas, Robert Frost and Seamus Heaney (both these links are a bit ad-heavy, be warned) while holding a spade in your hand? A bit more illuminating, perhaps! And a chance to expand upon their metaphors, to come up with new meanings for the act of digging.
Or a session with Prof. Liz Dowler on food sustainability, ethics and social issues? Or perhaps a talk by Nick Hillard himself on the campus environment, biodiversity, and water management (the Canley Brook runs across campus, with parts running along the edge of the allotment). Or even someone from Warwick's Food Security research group? Or outside speakers - how about setting up Permaculture training?
February 09, 2010
Oil giant Chevron is facing defeat in a lawsuit by the people of the Ecuadorian Amazon, seeking redress for its dumping billions of gallons of poisonous waste in the rainforest.
But the oil multinational has launched a last-ditch, dirty lobbying effort to derail the people’s case for holding polluters to account.
January 27, 2010
Writing about web page /ttooulig/entry/diary_of_a_1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_493/
Link from a while back on Unilever suspending palm oil purchases from a particular company. Interesting that they aren't stopping the purchase entirely.
Unilever, which consumes 4 per cent of the total global supply of palm oil for use in products including food spreads, ice cream and toiletries, said it was suspending future purchases from PT Smart, part of the Sinar Mas group over its environmental practices.
Another article I found while digging around points to General Mills, responsible for, among hundreds of other products, Cheerios, is accused of causing deforestation:
RAN says that at least a hundred General Mills products, including goods sold under Pillsbury, Betty Crocker, Stovetop Hamburger Helper and Toaster Strudel brands, contain palm oil or palm oil derivatives. RAN is calling for General Mills to commit to buying only responsibly-sourced palm oil.
It would be handy to have a list of products that contain elements grown on lands annexed from rainforests, but that kind of information ain't throwing itself up at me easily. Probably could be sourced from placing like the above-mentioned RAN - Rainforest Action Network - in the US. Trouble is, while the corporations exploiting these resources are globalised through financing, the action networks are localised. I've no idea if there's any kind of hub for international communications for this kind of thing - any thoughts welcome.
January 25, 2010
Mario Petrucci emailed the other day, with a sound a wonderful perspective on the current state of climate change. He kindly gave me permission to pass it on in full, below.
If you're busy, scroll down to the ten points he lists in the middle, and if you're feeling the urgency as well, copy, paste and post on your own blog.
And while I'm in utopia-mode: wouldn't it be nice if every website in the world added a sidebar menu link to ways of reducing carbon? This is a good link. At least for starters. I'm on approx 5 tonnes/year, and it gives a range of suggestions for cutting that to a recommended 4 tonnes.
And bear in mind also that the '100 months', while a contested figure, was released last year. So if you agree with it, we've more like 84 months to act. Or seven years.
100 months: a letter from Mario Petrucci [ecologist, physicist, writer]
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has estimated we have just 100 months left before Climate Change is irreversible. What they mean is that we'll probably not be able to contain CC, thereafter, at 2deg above pre-industrial levels. That could prove pretty serious.
As a scientist and ecologist, I can assure you that such vast alterations to global systems may well be much more catastrophic and rapid than our science predicts. What's just about certain, now, is that we're already past the point of getting off 'scot free'. On an unimaginable scale, it's Russian Roulette we're playing.
A key problem, for me, is that awareness can only be part of the response. Many of us are strongly informed on Climate Change and would do much more if we could - but we have commitments, families, difficult jobs to maintain, and so on. Also, some of us may have reservations about the whole issue, eg the possibility of CC itself becoming big business manipulated by powerful interest groups, or a sense of unease over who that 'we' in the political rhetoric might turn out to be. And, somewhere deep down, secretly, I find it easier to hope that the 'authorities', companies and NGOs are getting on with it. Meanwhile, another part of me is somewhat resigned to the powerful historical evidence of ongoing human folly.
But I've come to realise that fear, apathy or skeptical reticence have (for me) now become luxuries in this context. If you feel the same, may I propose some of the following actions, which don't take very long at all and could, if enough people got on board, who knows, begin to swing it...?
1. Share any news/ information you have on CC with colleagues and friends - everyone
2. Make CC a frequent topic of conversation, even at dinner parties and at work
3. Include CC as a major issue in any suitable talks, lectures and readings you give
4. Educate and prepare (but not frighten) our teenagers with regard to the issues (though many of them are already far ahead of us in terms of willingness to respond...)
5. Be alert to any opportunity to raise CC in the ordinary turn of daily events
Most importantly, seize on anything that can systemise the political and economic pressure for change, anything that acts as an amplifier for the individual will...
6. Lobby your MP; raise CC with anyone knocking on your door for a vote; ask them about 'Transition Towns', energy, or how they might encourage local initiatives over big business
7. Mention CC as a core concern in any relevant questionnaires you fill in (local council, etc)
8. Join Green organisations to swell their numbers and coffers (along with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND, etc. there are many reputable organisations such as 'Scientists for Global Responsibility')
9. Transfer some savings to genuinely eco-aware banks; buy eco-friendly products
10. Invest, if you can, in wind companies and other alternative energy initiatives, or in local consortiums such as 'The Good Fuel Co-op' (ironically, some of these may well become important ventures in the future (if there is one) which will reward the canny investor)
Many of you, I'm sure, will already be doing much of this; if so, apologies for the distraction. I just feel that, somehow, acting for the future has to made easier. And I believe, on good days, that the post-carbon world needn't be a terrifying, brutal place.
It seems to me that my little boy was only just born, and already he's 11 months old. 11% of that IPCC deadline. No deadline is definite, of course: there may be much more time than that; or much less. Which is why I've overcome my reticence in sending this out. If you agree with the message, please feel free to forward this e-mail to your e-list. It might just be the prompt someone needs; and maybe it will start something that spreads beyond our control (in a good way, for once).
Probably, you're hellishly busy. I know I am. Then give the 10 steps just 10 minutes? 10 minutes, let alone 100 months, can be a long time in politics, or to a species. Please, redouble your efforts. The time for mere awareness has passed.
November 10, 2009
Just saw notice of this event on email:
Music for Worms
Emily Death will be performing a short concert entitled "Music for Worms" from 6:30pm to 7:30pm on Wednesday 11 November in the Mead Gallery.
For more than 40 years, Darwin conducted experiments to identify the characteristics of earthworms. His experiments included playing music to worms – particularly the bassoon – to assess their ability to hear. In the year of Darwin’s bicentenary, Emily Death will play a short concert of music to the earthworms on show in the Mead Gallery to see if their response to music is any different to that of their nineteenth century forebears.
This event is free of charge.
This has made me very happy.
I suppose I should make some de-tangentialising comment about attending in order to determine the perma-response of worms to cultural phenomena such as the bassoon.