Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a little less 'cult' in permaculture and a little more scientific rigor in evaluating its potential. I have been experimenting with permaculture for years, and while it's been fun, it hasn't added many calories to my dinner plate.

First, acknowledge that it takes a long time for most trees in anything colder than a tropical client to produce a substantial amount of food. I planted olive trees seven years ago that, while beautiful and healthy, have yet to produce a single olive. I have pecan trees that are slowly growing taller, but no pecans. In fact, if you want some hard data, out of the 53 mixed trees on my property (pears, mulberries, mayhaws, pecans, olives, peaches, plums, nectarines, apples) that are five years old or older, about 15% of them are producing a substantial amount of food that survives insect attacks. (And no, I don't spray pesticides.) That means 85% are, at least for now, pretty fucking worthless when it comes to feeding me. So, here's a question: Who reading this post derives even half their annual caloric intake from food grown using permaculture?

Second, question whether permaculture is up to the task of dealing with invasive exotic pests like the brown marmorated stink bug. There are no effective natural predators in the US for this insect, and they can be devastating to a crop.

Third, if you had to feed yourself over the next 12 months, you would need to be growing a lot of annuals, especially potatoes. Permaculture tends to downplay too much the value of annuals in meeting dietary needs.

Forth, I get tired of listening to people tell me what they're going to do in the Edenic permaculture food forest, and I hear precious little about whether they've ever fed themselves using permaculture principles. I get a little tired of the oft-cited Austrian or Australian who allegedly has made a go of it, and damn little hard data to support these claims. The claims and the proof rarely line up.