Sal's evalution was interesting to me, since he's a field man who lives with
his trees (and evidently, his computer). I was surprised to see his position
is very similar to mine, except he doesn't reject grafting on principle. He
just recognizes the value of his seedlings. I can live with that, just as he
can live with his grafted trees.
Someone else's statement about the chinese or egyptians doing grafting BC
leaves me cold. All kinds of actrocites have occured since the beginning of
recorded history - and no doubt earlier.
Does grafting fulfill man's destiny? You say it does and that doesn't
surprise me. You admit to viewing man as manipulator, while to me, the
manipulation (i.e. clearing land) is just a prelude for the cultivation, for
the raising of things, and the raising of things is to me an experience best
realized without invasive tactics. I know you (and undoubtedly many others)
don't assimilate this well, don't take it to heart, don't appreciate it and
maybe don't understand it. It least your understanding is different and to my
mind deficient and that's sad to me, but if someone is going to have to miss
the boat, better you than me - maybe it wasn't your boat anyway, or maybe
you'll take a late train one of these days. See, we are kind of winding up
this discussion. Your relativist stuff simply shows you don't get it yet (not
what I get). But that doesn't bother you, so I guess it shouldn't bother me
either. In any case, I can't take full responsibility for it. I can't do any
more than what I'm doing (or have done) and I guess that's all I want to do
anyway. If the seed is viable, it'll sprout some day - in you or in someone
else.
Wilson, Dale wrote:
> Doug,
>
> This whole disagreement about grafting and clonal propagation is a
> miniature version of the same disagreement we have had about other kinds
> of disputed agricultural technology. This is a good opportunity to
> examine some the the philosophical foundations that inform your views.
OK. You are going to dissect my views - that really breaks me up. I can
hardly type I'm laughing so hard. fucking invasive bull shit.
> > Is it Man's nature to graft?
> >
> Looks like it to me. This is part and parcel of typical human
> interaction with and manipulation of the environment. How about
> pruning? That is manipulation. Planting in rows (or planting period)
> are rather recent inventions from an evolutionary perspective. Making
> compost is an unnatural act if viewed in this kind of light. So, where
> do you draw the line? The Amish draw it about at the invention of the
> zipper. But, why not shun buttons too. They were a new-fangled
> invention at one time. You are harking back, romantically, toward some
> (perceived) time in the distant past, when you think everything was
> wonderful. This is probably an illusion.
>
> > Is grafting trees a good example of proper plant husbandry, of a true
> > stewardship of the earth?
> >
> Looks like it to me. Why don't you explain how you think grafting is
> bad for the earth? Do think it does some sort of metaphysical damage?
You want me to repeat myself, it seems like endlessly. It has to do with the
integrity of the individual organism, and the fact that the game plan is a
growing, biological, evolving thing, not a Mr. Potato Face. (I'm breaking up
again).
> > Is it consistent with man's capacity and rightful destiny?
> >
> Explain what you mean by "destiny". One way to understand destiny is in
> an evolutionary sense. The ability to manipulate the natural
> environment has evolved in humans, just like it has in, say, harvester
> ants. Our manipulations of the environment are just as natural as the
> actions of the ants. That isn't to say that all these manipulations are
> desirable, just that there is no natural-law basis from which to judge.
That's good Dale, man as ant. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
Thanks.
> > In short: Is or isn't grafting a dead end, a wicked mess?
Yeah Dale.
> Compared to other environmental problems, this is about as trivial as
> you can get.
You might feel differently if you were a tree that had been grafted over, or
if you depended on fruit from grafted trees for your principle source of
sustenance.
You might feel differently if you were a tree that had been grafted over, or
if you depended on fruit from grafted trees for your principle source of
sustenance.
You might feel differently if you were a tree that had been grafted over, or
if you depended on fruit from grafted trees for your principle source of
sustenance.
I decided to emphasize that. It's a clue to the reason I've arrived at that
the conclusion I have arrived at.
> > I say it is. Is anyone prepared to say it isn't? (With emphasis on
> > the word prepared
> >
> Douglas, this is clearly an esthetic issue. It is analogous to the
> organic foods issue. Since you believe sincerely that seedling fruits
> contain some sort of natural emanation, go ahead and buy them. But if
> you intend to tell everybody else what to do, you need to come with some
> evidence beyond your intense feelings. Sometimes we are deceived by our
> feelings.
Life as an esthetic event. I like that. (Of course some think bull fighting
is an esthetic event, while I'm put off by the gratuitous brutality - I
sympathize too much with the bull. Yet I bull fight all the time - with
people, and even with cars).
Being deceived by ones feelings. You got something better to go on? Even
that you dissect - your own feelings. god damn. astounding.
> > The logic is admittedly grounded in moral terms, with "a good
> > understanding of plant physiology"(to cite the response from
> > Beltsville to my original article).
> >
> I have nothing against moral argument, but I haven't seen anything
> convincing in that respect. I would like to read your scientific
> rationale. Could you give us a citation so we can find your paper in
> the literature?
I don't think so, because the UCR studies weren't brought to a conclusion and
while I was involved in the design of them, they weren't mine.
The article was published in the California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook in
1973, I think. I recall finding a CRFG website some time back that stated
that the archives for that year had been lost. However, I have the article and
can attach it. In any case, it probably won't convince you. Your frame of
reference and experience is probably too different. It's mainly a call for in
depth studies to de done, and stable seedling lines of predictable fruit with
desireable qualities to be developed (or begun to be developed).
> > The science ought to follow. Will it?
> >
> You mentioned before that eating a grafted fruit puts you out of sorts
> for several days, while seedling fruit energizes you.
Right, it tunes me in. And it gets down to business, brass tacks, the ground
floor, basics.
> Why don't we set
> up a double-blind experiment. I could (maybe) get one of my pomologist
> friends to produce deep frozen cubes of fruit, or juice samples from
> seedling fruit and grafted fruit. The samples would be sent to you (and
> other people who feel the same way) and we could see if you are able to
> distinguish the identity of the samples by eating them. I'm willing to
> pay the postage. We could communicate the results publicly on SANET.
I won't eat frozen fruit. We could do this with fresh fruit, or fresh juice,
BUT - I HATE to ingest that grafted garbage. AND - once I run into ONE
grafted sample (and you have to leave plenty of time between samples), you
have to stop for the day, sometimes more. So it is hard to get "statistically
significant"results. I think the last run we did was 10 for 10, and that was
over a few days. When I had tried to do a 100 or more in the same lenth of
time, the results were less precise. Also, I discoved that their Key was
imperfect (some of the trees were incorrectly identified).
Frankly, I've got better things to do. (And that's exactly what I decided
then). Eating that garbage screws up my perception and I've deadlines to meet
for projects that are less Mickey Mouse. What does it prove, if I CAN
distinguish between them? Does that put a value on one or the other? If
there's an imbalance transmitted from the tree to the fruit to the consumer,
then look for that! (That was my position then. But I was told that in order
to cross departmental lines and ask for the instrumented studies - in the
fruit, not in me - we'd need statistics based on my performance first, so he
could justify it; i.e. not get laughed at). So it was cowardice. He stayed at
UCR, and I left the country for the hills of Jalsico, to plow with my mules,
along a river bank in an area where people had lived self suficiently for
hundreds of years. No electricity, MD's, year round access, paved road,
telephones, bus service, police and so on. Great place! Lot's of unity, and
natural beauty so thick you could almost live off that alone. A glass of
mountain water was almost a meal in itself. Good mules, good dogs, a good
grove, good neighbors, everybody working hard and showing up in town on
Sundays, especially in the plaza after dark (except the girls from distant
ranches whose family owned no houses in town - they'd have to saddle up and
ride back early). It was perfect.
Then pot seed was brought in, about the same time I began leaving in the
summer rainy season to teach english in the city - at he same time the
economic crisis hit, I contracted a serious disease as a direct result of
having compromised my diet, the dope growers back in the hills all began to
kill each other or get busted, NAFTA and the internet came, politics became
important in my life and I became involved in ambitious development projects.
Back to science, back to laws, back to policies.
Now back to: If there's an imbalace transmitted from the tree to the fruit to
the consumer, then look for that! Another thing - given the garbage most
people eat, the difference will NOT be significant. So I'm still stuck in my
better but somewhat lonely world. (Ni modo). Maybe I'm the canary in the coal
mine. But no canary in it's right mind wants to live in a coal mine. Even if
he'd have plenty of company.
> Dale
It's 1:30 AM and somehow I haven't eaten yet. You wouldn't believe the kind
of day it's been. Too incredible to mention. I met with a congressman and
got his support, was attacked, almost killed, incarcerated and yet came out on
top of all of it, ready to roll and stronger than ever. Things are moving
along, running through their cyles as they should. Somehow I'm still driving
mules. (Mules can read your mind).
--Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".