While I don't know too much about grafting, I did want to comment on some aspects of
the debate. The examination of assumptions that Dale and Doug are going through is
great for any critical reflections and I applaud this. Dale wrote the following
response to Doug:
> > 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.
>
The key idea here is why did the Amish draw the line at the zipper? Why do some
Amish communities use gas generators to cool meat lockers or to run milk tanks? Why
do some old order Mennonite communities use generators to power silage choppers? Why
do they accept rides from outsiders but use buggies in their community? All of these
"contradictions" make perfect sense to the Amish -- who are not strictly
anti-technology as we would like to think -- who examine each technology from a
community perspective and make a community decision about whether or not to accept
and use that technology. (Okay, most likely the men make the community decision.)
Their criteria for acceptance are not technological or scientific in nature, but
rather the impacts that adopting this technology will have on the community and Amish
way of life. For instance, a telephone for daily communication destroys elements of
their community, a telephone for on-farm sales to outsiders does not. The Amish are
living an "illusion" as you term it -- they have co-existed and intermingled with an
incresing technological and industrial society for 300 years, yet they have kept
their micro-society intact in the ways they want. The key point is that they decide
on the basis of social and community criteria what technology they want to accept.
This is easier(?) for them than the larger society because they are a homogenous
society with a central belief system. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on
one's views) for the rest of us, we in the larger society have to constantly examine
the criteria we are going to use for saying something is "organic" or "good" on the
basis of competing belief systems. While scientific rationality and market logic
underly most of our decisions and tend to be the dominant belief systems in most
parts of U.S. society, they are not the only ones as one can see in the posts on
grafting. Thus, scientific criteria have to be juggled with moral and social
criteria and unfortunately we are none too clear on the latter.
These other questions (I think posed by Doug),
> > Is grafting trees a good example of proper plant husbandry, of a true
> > stewardship of the earth?
>
> > Is it consistent with man's capacity and rightful destiny?
along with the essential nature of human beings -- are difficult questions which need
reflection because ultimately these are what inform any belief system (even
scientific rationality). I'm happy though, if each of us clarify these individually
and put them up front in our discussions. This is the only way we are going to
develop any of the social or moral criteria that are essential to decision-making.
(And no decision is without those elements!)
Mary
-- Mary Hendrickson, Ph.D. Department of Rural Sociology University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 Tele: 573-882-7463 Fax: 573-882-1473
--------------1AC64743F7E25216845B158B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
While I don't know too much about grafting, I did want to comment on some aspects of the debate. The examination of assumptions that Dale and Doug are going through is great for any critical reflections and I applaud this. Dale wrote the following response to Doug:
> Is it Man's nature to graft?The key idea here is why did the Amish draw the line at the zipper? Why do some Amish communities use gas generators to cool meat lockers or to run milk tanks? Why do some old order Mennonite communities use generators to power silage choppers? Why do they accept rides from outsiders but use buggies in their community? All of these "contradictions" make perfect sense to the Amish -- who are not strictly anti-technology as we would like to think -- who examine each technology from a community perspective and make a community decision about whether or not to accept and use that technology. (Okay, most likely the men make the community decision.) Their criteria for acceptance are not technological or scientific in nature, but rather the impacts that adopting this technology will have on the community and Amish way of life. For instance, a telephone for daily communication destroys elements of their community, a telephone for on-farm sales to outsiders does not. The Amish are living an "illusion" as you term it -- they have co-existed and intermingled with an incresing technological and industrial society for 300 years, yet they have kept their micro-society intact in the ways they want. The key point is that they decide on the basis of social and community criteria what technology they want to accept. This is easier(?) for them than the larger society because they are a homogenous society with a central belief system. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on one's views) for the rest of us, we in the larger society have to constantly examine the criteria we are going to use for saying something is "organic" or "good" on the basis of competing belief systems. While scientific rationality and market logic underly most of our decisions and tend to be the dominant belief systems in most parts of U.S. society, they are not the only ones as one can see in the posts on grafting. Thus, scientific criteria have to be juggled with moral and social criteria and unfortunately we are none too clear on the latter.
>
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.
These other questions (I think posed by Doug),
> Is grafting trees a good example of proper plant husbandry, of a truealong with the essential nature of human beings -- are difficult questions which need reflection because ultimately these are what inform any belief system (even scientific rationality). I'm happy though, if each of us clarify these individually and put them up front in our discussions. This is the only way we are going to develop any of the social or moral criteria that are essential to decision-making. (And no decision is without those elements!)
> stewardship of the earth?> Is it consistent with man's capacity and rightful destiny?
Mary
--
Mary Hendrickson, Ph.D.
Department of Rural Sociology
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
Tele: 573-882-7463
Fax: 573-882-1473
--------------1AC64743F7E25216845B158B-- 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".