However, this way of seeing science is debatable. It can be claimed that the order is the opposite: natural science starts from the assumption that there exists a human-independent and causally structured world, consisting of physical entities. All the empirical results of natural science are dependent on and follow from these basic assumptions.

One way of arguing for the latter position would be to point out that it is empirically very hard if not impossible to find an example of a culture/society/practice that would rely on natural science but that would not have embraced the (Western) notions of separeteness of humans and nature, and the “billiard ball” picture of nature. In other words, it seems not to be possible to practice (Western) natural science without practicing a (Western) view of humans & nature. Natural science & Western modernity seem to be empirically an “a-tomistic”, ie. indivisible whole. (I really would like to hear of an example proving the contrary).

What Eric Hunting is proposing, i.e. a scientifically informed deep-ecological permacultural practice, seems in principle possible. Indeed, if we hold the first view of natural science, it seems strange if not perverse that such a thing does not empirically exist. However, if we see natural science as essentially embedded in Western modern notions of humans and nature as the second view proposes, it becomes clear that the presuppositions of natural science are, in part, incompatible with, say, Taoist or other traditional views and practices. Hence the suspicion or hostility of “primitivist” permaculturists toward “techno-permaculture” could be seen as a new form of the well-known and often lamented resistance of traditional/aboriginal cultures towards science-based modernization.