In some cases it is. So what? Even that form of practice is valuable.
One can't expect the permaculture people to also stage an overnight revolution and reform society. The social changes I describe are needed badly, but they are outside the scope of permaculture itself.
Permaculture is is an important aspect of a much larger goal around sustainability.
How?
> One can't expect the permaculture people to also stage an overnight revolution and reform society. The social changes I describe are needed badly, but they are outside the scope of permaculture itself
How can you claim permaculture is about the goals you described if it's not contributing to them?
>How can you claim permaculture is about the goals you described if it's not contributing to them?
Permaculture is not about those goals specifically. It can contribute to those goals, aligns with them nicely, and many people who are into permaculture are also into those other goals, but it is not the goal.
The engine is not the entire car.
It isn't realistic or healthy to expect everyone to be self sufficient, there are plenty of food reasons we developed societies. It also isn't healthy or realistic for a country as large as the US to depend on a system that makes all of our food in a handful of industrial farms and feed plots so it can be distributed nationally by truck. It also isn't healthy to motivate said industries to measure output by pound regardless of nutritional value, sustainable practices, or animal welfare.
Permaculture often amounts to individuals growing food on their own land today because the system is so far removed from anything resembling permaculture that there aren't other options. Ideally permaculture concepts would be practiced by local farms and we would all be eating healthier food, grown in a more sustainable way closer to where we live.
That seems to be what it amounts to in practice though. Noble goals are a fine thing, but your steps towards the goal need to actually constitute progress towards the goal.