You may want to investigate the working breeding communities in daylilies and Iris. For example, in daylilies there are at least 300 active amateur and professional breeders in the USA alone, and we gleefully buy or exchange with others for our programs to produce locally well-adapted vegetatively propagated perennial varieties. Our goals are largely independently selected: you might as well herd cats. There is an awards and judging system for breeders. We tend to sell directly to gardeners: only a few make it into the big-box distribution networks. But there are well over 6000 members of the daylily society buying from us.
I have the various ornamental plant breeding communities on my radar to investigate since they should have parallels with crop breeding. There are historic ornamentals like sweet peas which can serve as a useful model for how society handles developing a species over time.
The book seems like an excellent starting point to design the groups you want to create. I love the idea of gradient flows to understand collective organization better. The troubles your initial hierarchical scheme presents (traditional hierarchy problems) doesn't seem to take advantage of this sort of "carving out river basins" organization idea.
Another description of the gradient as I understand it: move a variety of growers *from* a place of little-to-no organized participation in moving seeds to their optimal geographic location *to* a place of social connection facilitating this optimal localizing and a diverse gene reservoir. The underlying flows are probably made up of an infinity notably including interpersonal affinities, communication styles and spatial proximity, motivation and efficiency of movement.
It's worth re-stating, because seeing this as a mountain, with conceptual knowledge, people and existing genes on the top of it, say, in the form of liquid that will need to flow down the mountain effectively, the founder is probably only really the person that can roll down the mountain, with enough surface tension in the fluid to start to pull the relevant mass into motion. The 20th century model you describe is like creating a raft to navigate an amazing toboggan ride. The hierarchical model you've discussed looks to me like formalizing that you will be going down that hill, with about 4 other people, and thwn they are going to be responsible for getting 4 other to participate (in a sort of multi-level-marketing style recruitment).
I guess I'm suggesting that whatever you're reading might consider developing higher probabilities of emitting other organizers or other first rain drops (a sort of high potential energy model, that is founding responsibility) to all fall down the same mountain and create the necessary flows.
So your first approach would kick the system into gear and assuming buy-in to the group aggregation process, is then dependent on developing a sufficiently flexible hierarchy to span the mountain surface terrain and flow, hoping that the nieches occupied can be confidently managed. Versus founders as developing conditions of high potential energy near the top of a known mountain, helping or fostering the emission of actors into the ecosystem. Watching it flourish or diving right into it when the need for this high potential energy zone is over. Though this may not offer sufficient control towards your precise objective.
I see a seed breeding group network as functioning more like a lung where the point to area flow corresponds with seed being distributed (and the skills to grow and select it) then the area to point flow happening in the reverse direction when seed goes back to the founder for blending and quality assurance.
I think modern industrial culture is strangely allergic to hierarchies, a human habit which has served us well for thousands of years. Hopefully soon I will share my thoughts on this issue. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Given the very sparse starting point in terms of local crop breeding culture I suspect I am going to have to serve a catalytic role to get the process started, but I am keen to figure out how to do it with the least intervention possible (and quickly train other people to replace my role). I might be 20 years too early to even attempt this if the critical mass of motivated people around me doesn't yet exist. Australians are still pretty fat, even if they are often unhappy.
I hope to field test a range of different approaches and models, rather than assuming I can intuit or research the perfect one on paper from some abstract principles (not that different to how I like to throw all my crop genetics around and see what strains can handle my benign neglect). Humans are capable of astonishing behavioural flexibility, but it is equally astonishing to see how uniform they have become in industrial society.
If you have other books on organisational management or psychology I am keen to find other ways of approaching the problem (though the biomimetic one in Design and Nature had a lot that resonated with me, but maybe that attitude will only lead me to obvious solutions). Flexibility built into any networks seems to be key though, so at the very least I will take that away from the book. Finding some appealing way of formalising relationships and duties (in a decentralised but legible manner) is my next problem to consider, as a way of motivating the group members and keeping them accountable.
I'm looking forward to more of your thoughts about hierarchy. I think instead, I should take a look at this book myself. If this modern allergy is as you've expressed, then my comment is largely a reaction.
My thought on reading material was gradient descent algorithms, or path finding algorithms (e.g. ant foraging is popular) and thinking about how to translate or recover human role behaviours. This is likely still too general or disconnected though.
Organization and management rhetoric turns my stomach too much still to get through more than a whitepaper on the subject, but it's probably going to offer the best way to move people in the near term.
How much is contact restricted between unconnected nodes? Would people at each level of the hierarchy not communicate with their ‘peers’? It would seem like that would be useful for sharing information on how best to navigate challenges at each level, but not sure if that is considered a new node or not.
I hope to explore this aspect later (especially if I can get a decent book on the topic to read) but I think a distinction between formal social structures and informal processes is worth highlighting. I think formal hierarchies show their worst tendencies when they become totalising, as in one framework dictates all relationships. I see the graph sketched out is purely concerned with a limited set of duties and resource flows around crop breeding. Opportunities for informal groupings and diffusion on a small scale are still very doable. For example the founder getting all four growers one level down together for a small meeting could be very useful so they can interact with each other (potentially laying the foundation for different formal relationships in the future when the network changes structure). Likewise a first level grower could gather all their underlings. And now and then everyone could come together (for example at the peak of the season for a big tasting party for a crop like pumpkin or tomato where this is viable).
In what I was describing, the graph would be fully connected, and then it is a question of how much to reinforce critical connections to ensure that relatively unconnected nodes are signalling in the network. These nodes are good, being less connected and all, especially if they're uniquely and potentially devastatingly sensitive.
But also, the presence of multiple unique but functionally redundant graphs is how I was trying to address my own response to seeing this hierarchy for the sort of project that might need to be entrenched rigidly for survival
Додам, що важливо розуміти, що з часом мережі завжди розпадаються, а окремі гілки відмежовуються.
Модель храповикової ієрархії з засновником дуже спокуслива, і з огляду на викладену концепції цілком логічна.
Дам непрохану пораду, придивітьсч до патерну дощу що йде над ставкои.
Кожна краплина створює збурення, що розповсюджується і перетинається між собою і зрештою зникає до появи нового збурення.
Модель залучає найнижчі рівні ієрархічної мережі до кількох наставників, які вивчивши різні підходи, що походять від первинного засновника можуть створити щось нове, ставши затравкою для зародження нового збурення. Яке з часом так само згасне створивши нові.
Пишу, бо з часом ієрархічні догматичні системи незворотньо руйнуються не залишаючи навіть первинної ідеї і головних принципів, рухаючись "не в тому напрямку". Як сталося з пермакультурою яка з практики перетворилася в "сертифікацію", "курси" та міні-проекти для заробітку.
В моєму регіоні існують тисячі аматорів, які несвідомо селекціонують деякі культури, висаджуючи їх разом, розсіваючи насіння, безкоштовно ділячись насінням, як через харчові ринки так і простий обмін. Існують сотні сортів помідорів безіменних, чиї плоди мають такі властивості і смак, які не зустрінеш в жодному каталозі. Досі (!) існує спадок Мічуріна, який заклавши мережу дослідно-селекційних станцій впровадив селекцію в народне хоббі.
Станції досі функціонують, хоч і мало фінансуються, підтримуються громадою чи місцевою владою. А сортотипи і види селекціонованих культур не обмежуються виданими каталогами, дуже багато селекції ведеться і не включається туди через "не товарний вигляд", але смак, він божествений. а медоносні рослини, лікарські, технічні, по усім цим напрямках робота іде.
Щось написав забагато, вибачаюсь, але не зупиняйтеся на центральній ролі, пустіть його з часом, акцентуйте сили на найближчому колі, яке згодом пустить своє коріння, можливо з часом, ваша праця зникне, однак праця якогось учня вибухне з великою силою, яка пам'ятатиме підвалини закладені вами.
Hmm... I'll add that it's important to understand that over time, networks always fall apart, and separate branches are demarcated. The model of the ratchet hierarchy with the founder is very tempting, and in view of the presented concept, it is quite logical. I will give unsolicited advice, look closely at the pattern of rain falling over the pond. Each droplet creates a perturbation that propagates and intersects with each other and eventually disappears before a new perturbation appears. The model involves the lowest levels of the hierarchical network to several mentors who, after learning different approaches originating from the original founder, can create something new, becoming the seeds for the birth of a new disruption. Which over time will also fade away creating new ones. I am writing because over time hierarchical dogmatic systems are irreversibly destroyed without even leaving the primary idea and main principles, moving "in the wrong direction". What happened to permaculture, which turned from practice into "certification", "courses" and mini-projects for earning. In my area, there are thousands of hobbyists who unknowingly breed some crops, planting them together, sowing seeds, sharing seeds for free, both through food markets and simple exchanges. There are hundreds of varieties of nameless tomatoes, whose fruits have such properties and taste that you will not find in any catalog. There is still (!) the legacy of Michurin, who, having established a network of research breeding stations, introduced breeding into a popular hobby. The stations are still functioning, albeit with little funding, community or local government support. And the varieties and types of selected crops are not limited to published catalogs, a lot of selection is carried out and is not included there because of "not marketable appearance", but the taste, it is divine. and honey-bearing plants, medicinal plants, technical plants, work is going on in all these directions. I wrote something too much, I'm sorry, but don't stop at the central role, let it go over time, focus your efforts on the nearest circle, which will later take root, maybe over time, your work will disappear, but the work of some student will explode with a great force that will be remembered will lay the foundations laid by you. Good luck :)
RESPONSE
You are totally right in building the expectation for networks to decay into the design is key. I like the idea that annual crops have a natural rhythm to them, so the possibility of the network disintegrating then reforming with a different structure each year could be interesting. This could be a way for community members to gradually develop real relationships with a few more people each year, rather than just throwing everyone into a meeting hall and hoping they figure it out themselves. A little bit like a buddy system for a new kid introduced to a school.
I like your image of the raindrops. Ideally a community would have several founders, with their own crop specialities, so that the different networks intersected in beautiful ways. It also helps resilience if you dont just have one person who is an expert in all the obscure tricks with every crop. When they drop dead the community is in trouble.
There are some interesting lessons from the history of plant breeding spreading as a hobby or duty for small farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century in Europe (I found a few amazing books on the topic that I will review on substack soon). You are lucky to live in a part of the world with such a heritage (though it comes with cycles of conflict that are more dependable than Australian rainfall patterns).
Hey Shane, I had basically given up community breeding for lack of time to co-ordinate, and almost zero seed returns over two years. This model might get me motivated again. Who knew I would get into a 'pyramid selling scheme'? :). Tupperware parties are in the news today -perhaps there are lessons there?
This is still a top down model, and might meet some resistance - is there a more distributed decision making process that would work? Who decides on the main goal? Who gets and pays for the founder seed?
I suspect that initial interest would come from more alternative communities and individuals, and a heirarchy like this might meet consensus resistance.
Perhaps an exit clause like I included with my seed, adapted from the OSSI model, or that lets anyone leave with their seed if they have a different idea of progress.
"Congratulations seed owner and cooperative plant breeder. We hope these seeds bring you joy and you have fun growing them. You have the freedom to use these Open Source seeds in any way you choose. In return you pledge not to restrict others' use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this pledge with ANY transfer of these seeds or their derivatives. "
Looking forward to talking about your community crop breeding projects soon. If we can scrape all the lessons of our failures together we might be able to figure out a path forward. One decentralised model I considered is a social network that is more like a ring. New people could be added with sponsorship of people either side, as a way of increasing the chance of harmonious connections (and smooth contractions if people drop out). It lacks the efficiency of initiation and resource distribution (so might rely on infrequent get togethers of all members). I think the main weak point in current attempts is accountability, which relies on some greater depth of connections between people (or maybe there are other mechanisms I could try as well).
Good reminder to tap into the OSSI principles. I am tempted to extend the idea even further. Perhaps if I manage to breed a local spring rockmelon/muskmelon that smells divine the breeders can declare it to be a sacred plant that can never be sold for money (much as our culture frowns upon selling sex, or other human beings) and that it can only be experienced by people who either grow it for themselves or have friends which will grow it and give them some. Wheat was cultivated for producing alcohol for "ceremonial" purposes for a long time by people who were otherwise mostly hunter-gatherers before agriculture really took off. Maybe linking some kind of ritual/ceremonial/celebratory function of the crops grown is necessary to increase engagement.
Reading your post was very timely as I consider setting up a community seed swap after having recently moving back to the village I grew up in. I'm keen to try a nature-reflected design of structure....anything to avoid another committee meeting. I may not fully have grasped all that you're saying here but I have been moved to doodle hierarchies in response to the provocative piece and consider what that seed swap could look like (and achieve). Thanks!
This is great to hear! Whatever approach you take, I would love if you can take notes and let me know how it goes. I am always looking for potential podcast guests who have gone through a year or two of running community crop breeding groups to get insights into what works and what doesn't.
Always happy to talk all things community food growing! I was lucky to be involved in many years of the first UK community seed swap set up by Brighton & Hove Organic Gardening group, and my day job at Brighton Permaculture Trust is working to plant traditional orchards (and heritage varieties) with communities. So I can go off topic in lots of directions :)
You may want to investigate the working breeding communities in daylilies and Iris. For example, in daylilies there are at least 300 active amateur and professional breeders in the USA alone, and we gleefully buy or exchange with others for our programs to produce locally well-adapted vegetatively propagated perennial varieties. Our goals are largely independently selected: you might as well herd cats. There is an awards and judging system for breeders. We tend to sell directly to gardeners: only a few make it into the big-box distribution networks. But there are well over 6000 members of the daylily society buying from us.
I have the various ornamental plant breeding communities on my radar to investigate since they should have parallels with crop breeding. There are historic ornamentals like sweet peas which can serve as a useful model for how society handles developing a species over time.
The book seems like an excellent starting point to design the groups you want to create. I love the idea of gradient flows to understand collective organization better. The troubles your initial hierarchical scheme presents (traditional hierarchy problems) doesn't seem to take advantage of this sort of "carving out river basins" organization idea.
Another description of the gradient as I understand it: move a variety of growers *from* a place of little-to-no organized participation in moving seeds to their optimal geographic location *to* a place of social connection facilitating this optimal localizing and a diverse gene reservoir. The underlying flows are probably made up of an infinity notably including interpersonal affinities, communication styles and spatial proximity, motivation and efficiency of movement.
It's worth re-stating, because seeing this as a mountain, with conceptual knowledge, people and existing genes on the top of it, say, in the form of liquid that will need to flow down the mountain effectively, the founder is probably only really the person that can roll down the mountain, with enough surface tension in the fluid to start to pull the relevant mass into motion. The 20th century model you describe is like creating a raft to navigate an amazing toboggan ride. The hierarchical model you've discussed looks to me like formalizing that you will be going down that hill, with about 4 other people, and thwn they are going to be responsible for getting 4 other to participate (in a sort of multi-level-marketing style recruitment).
I guess I'm suggesting that whatever you're reading might consider developing higher probabilities of emitting other organizers or other first rain drops (a sort of high potential energy model, that is founding responsibility) to all fall down the same mountain and create the necessary flows.
So your first approach would kick the system into gear and assuming buy-in to the group aggregation process, is then dependent on developing a sufficiently flexible hierarchy to span the mountain surface terrain and flow, hoping that the nieches occupied can be confidently managed. Versus founders as developing conditions of high potential energy near the top of a known mountain, helping or fostering the emission of actors into the ecosystem. Watching it flourish or diving right into it when the need for this high potential energy zone is over. Though this may not offer sufficient control towards your precise objective.
I see a seed breeding group network as functioning more like a lung where the point to area flow corresponds with seed being distributed (and the skills to grow and select it) then the area to point flow happening in the reverse direction when seed goes back to the founder for blending and quality assurance.
I think modern industrial culture is strangely allergic to hierarchies, a human habit which has served us well for thousands of years. Hopefully soon I will share my thoughts on this issue. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Given the very sparse starting point in terms of local crop breeding culture I suspect I am going to have to serve a catalytic role to get the process started, but I am keen to figure out how to do it with the least intervention possible (and quickly train other people to replace my role). I might be 20 years too early to even attempt this if the critical mass of motivated people around me doesn't yet exist. Australians are still pretty fat, even if they are often unhappy.
I hope to field test a range of different approaches and models, rather than assuming I can intuit or research the perfect one on paper from some abstract principles (not that different to how I like to throw all my crop genetics around and see what strains can handle my benign neglect). Humans are capable of astonishing behavioural flexibility, but it is equally astonishing to see how uniform they have become in industrial society.
If you have other books on organisational management or psychology I am keen to find other ways of approaching the problem (though the biomimetic one in Design and Nature had a lot that resonated with me, but maybe that attitude will only lead me to obvious solutions). Flexibility built into any networks seems to be key though, so at the very least I will take that away from the book. Finding some appealing way of formalising relationships and duties (in a decentralised but legible manner) is my next problem to consider, as a way of motivating the group members and keeping them accountable.
I'm looking forward to more of your thoughts about hierarchy. I think instead, I should take a look at this book myself. If this modern allergy is as you've expressed, then my comment is largely a reaction.
My thought on reading material was gradient descent algorithms, or path finding algorithms (e.g. ant foraging is popular) and thinking about how to translate or recover human role behaviours. This is likely still too general or disconnected though.
Organization and management rhetoric turns my stomach too much still to get through more than a whitepaper on the subject, but it's probably going to offer the best way to move people in the near term.
How much is contact restricted between unconnected nodes? Would people at each level of the hierarchy not communicate with their ‘peers’? It would seem like that would be useful for sharing information on how best to navigate challenges at each level, but not sure if that is considered a new node or not.
I hope to explore this aspect later (especially if I can get a decent book on the topic to read) but I think a distinction between formal social structures and informal processes is worth highlighting. I think formal hierarchies show their worst tendencies when they become totalising, as in one framework dictates all relationships. I see the graph sketched out is purely concerned with a limited set of duties and resource flows around crop breeding. Opportunities for informal groupings and diffusion on a small scale are still very doable. For example the founder getting all four growers one level down together for a small meeting could be very useful so they can interact with each other (potentially laying the foundation for different formal relationships in the future when the network changes structure). Likewise a first level grower could gather all their underlings. And now and then everyone could come together (for example at the peak of the season for a big tasting party for a crop like pumpkin or tomato where this is viable).
In what I was describing, the graph would be fully connected, and then it is a question of how much to reinforce critical connections to ensure that relatively unconnected nodes are signalling in the network. These nodes are good, being less connected and all, especially if they're uniquely and potentially devastatingly sensitive.
But also, the presence of multiple unique but functionally redundant graphs is how I was trying to address my own response to seeing this hierarchy for the sort of project that might need to be entrenched rigidly for survival
Хм...
Додам, що важливо розуміти, що з часом мережі завжди розпадаються, а окремі гілки відмежовуються.
Модель храповикової ієрархії з засновником дуже спокуслива, і з огляду на викладену концепції цілком логічна.
Дам непрохану пораду, придивітьсч до патерну дощу що йде над ставкои.
Кожна краплина створює збурення, що розповсюджується і перетинається між собою і зрештою зникає до появи нового збурення.
Модель залучає найнижчі рівні ієрархічної мережі до кількох наставників, які вивчивши різні підходи, що походять від первинного засновника можуть створити щось нове, ставши затравкою для зародження нового збурення. Яке з часом так само згасне створивши нові.
Пишу, бо з часом ієрархічні догматичні системи незворотньо руйнуються не залишаючи навіть первинної ідеї і головних принципів, рухаючись "не в тому напрямку". Як сталося з пермакультурою яка з практики перетворилася в "сертифікацію", "курси" та міні-проекти для заробітку.
В моєму регіоні існують тисячі аматорів, які несвідомо селекціонують деякі культури, висаджуючи їх разом, розсіваючи насіння, безкоштовно ділячись насінням, як через харчові ринки так і простий обмін. Існують сотні сортів помідорів безіменних, чиї плоди мають такі властивості і смак, які не зустрінеш в жодному каталозі. Досі (!) існує спадок Мічуріна, який заклавши мережу дослідно-селекційних станцій впровадив селекцію в народне хоббі.
Станції досі функціонують, хоч і мало фінансуються, підтримуються громадою чи місцевою владою. А сортотипи і види селекціонованих культур не обмежуються виданими каталогами, дуже багато селекції ведеться і не включається туди через "не товарний вигляд", але смак, він божествений. а медоносні рослини, лікарські, технічні, по усім цим напрямках робота іде.
Щось написав забагато, вибачаюсь, але не зупиняйтеся на центральній ролі, пустіть його з часом, акцентуйте сили на найближчому колі, яке згодом пустить своє коріння, можливо з часом, ваша праця зникне, однак праця якогось учня вибухне з великою силою, яка пам'ятатиме підвалини закладені вами.
Хай щастить :)
Translation followed by my response:
Hmm... I'll add that it's important to understand that over time, networks always fall apart, and separate branches are demarcated. The model of the ratchet hierarchy with the founder is very tempting, and in view of the presented concept, it is quite logical. I will give unsolicited advice, look closely at the pattern of rain falling over the pond. Each droplet creates a perturbation that propagates and intersects with each other and eventually disappears before a new perturbation appears. The model involves the lowest levels of the hierarchical network to several mentors who, after learning different approaches originating from the original founder, can create something new, becoming the seeds for the birth of a new disruption. Which over time will also fade away creating new ones. I am writing because over time hierarchical dogmatic systems are irreversibly destroyed without even leaving the primary idea and main principles, moving "in the wrong direction". What happened to permaculture, which turned from practice into "certification", "courses" and mini-projects for earning. In my area, there are thousands of hobbyists who unknowingly breed some crops, planting them together, sowing seeds, sharing seeds for free, both through food markets and simple exchanges. There are hundreds of varieties of nameless tomatoes, whose fruits have such properties and taste that you will not find in any catalog. There is still (!) the legacy of Michurin, who, having established a network of research breeding stations, introduced breeding into a popular hobby. The stations are still functioning, albeit with little funding, community or local government support. And the varieties and types of selected crops are not limited to published catalogs, a lot of selection is carried out and is not included there because of "not marketable appearance", but the taste, it is divine. and honey-bearing plants, medicinal plants, technical plants, work is going on in all these directions. I wrote something too much, I'm sorry, but don't stop at the central role, let it go over time, focus your efforts on the nearest circle, which will later take root, maybe over time, your work will disappear, but the work of some student will explode with a great force that will be remembered will lay the foundations laid by you. Good luck :)
RESPONSE
You are totally right in building the expectation for networks to decay into the design is key. I like the idea that annual crops have a natural rhythm to them, so the possibility of the network disintegrating then reforming with a different structure each year could be interesting. This could be a way for community members to gradually develop real relationships with a few more people each year, rather than just throwing everyone into a meeting hall and hoping they figure it out themselves. A little bit like a buddy system for a new kid introduced to a school.
I like your image of the raindrops. Ideally a community would have several founders, with their own crop specialities, so that the different networks intersected in beautiful ways. It also helps resilience if you dont just have one person who is an expert in all the obscure tricks with every crop. When they drop dead the community is in trouble.
There are some interesting lessons from the history of plant breeding spreading as a hobby or duty for small farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century in Europe (I found a few amazing books on the topic that I will review on substack soon). You are lucky to live in a part of the world with such a heritage (though it comes with cycles of conflict that are more dependable than Australian rainfall patterns).
Thank you again for a lovely and touching reply.
Hey Shane, I had basically given up community breeding for lack of time to co-ordinate, and almost zero seed returns over two years. This model might get me motivated again. Who knew I would get into a 'pyramid selling scheme'? :). Tupperware parties are in the news today -perhaps there are lessons there?
This is still a top down model, and might meet some resistance - is there a more distributed decision making process that would work? Who decides on the main goal? Who gets and pays for the founder seed?
I suspect that initial interest would come from more alternative communities and individuals, and a heirarchy like this might meet consensus resistance.
Perhaps an exit clause like I included with my seed, adapted from the OSSI model, or that lets anyone leave with their seed if they have a different idea of progress.
"Congratulations seed owner and cooperative plant breeder. We hope these seeds bring you joy and you have fun growing them. You have the freedom to use these Open Source seeds in any way you choose. In return you pledge not to restrict others' use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this pledge with ANY transfer of these seeds or their derivatives. "
Hi Gregg
Looking forward to talking about your community crop breeding projects soon. If we can scrape all the lessons of our failures together we might be able to figure out a path forward. One decentralised model I considered is a social network that is more like a ring. New people could be added with sponsorship of people either side, as a way of increasing the chance of harmonious connections (and smooth contractions if people drop out). It lacks the efficiency of initiation and resource distribution (so might rely on infrequent get togethers of all members). I think the main weak point in current attempts is accountability, which relies on some greater depth of connections between people (or maybe there are other mechanisms I could try as well).
Good reminder to tap into the OSSI principles. I am tempted to extend the idea even further. Perhaps if I manage to breed a local spring rockmelon/muskmelon that smells divine the breeders can declare it to be a sacred plant that can never be sold for money (much as our culture frowns upon selling sex, or other human beings) and that it can only be experienced by people who either grow it for themselves or have friends which will grow it and give them some. Wheat was cultivated for producing alcohol for "ceremonial" purposes for a long time by people who were otherwise mostly hunter-gatherers before agriculture really took off. Maybe linking some kind of ritual/ceremonial/celebratory function of the crops grown is necessary to increase engagement.
Reading your post was very timely as I consider setting up a community seed swap after having recently moving back to the village I grew up in. I'm keen to try a nature-reflected design of structure....anything to avoid another committee meeting. I may not fully have grasped all that you're saying here but I have been moved to doodle hierarchies in response to the provocative piece and consider what that seed swap could look like (and achieve). Thanks!
This is great to hear! Whatever approach you take, I would love if you can take notes and let me know how it goes. I am always looking for potential podcast guests who have gone through a year or two of running community crop breeding groups to get insights into what works and what doesn't.
Always happy to talk all things community food growing! I was lucky to be involved in many years of the first UK community seed swap set up by Brighton & Hove Organic Gardening group, and my day job at Brighton Permaculture Trust is working to plant traditional orchards (and heritage varieties) with communities. So I can go off topic in lots of directions :)