Science, Technology, and Progress
Ikerd, John E. (IkerdJ@missouri.edu)
Thu, 13 May 1999 13:11:08 -0500
Sanet;
One benefit of getting older for people like Harold Reetz and myself is that
we can brag about how many years of experience we have. I am going on 35
years of experience in industry and extension work in agriculture, and I
find it increasing difficult each year to defend either industry or
extension. I think that both groups sincerely believe in what they are
doing, but both have become increasingly close-minded to anything that seems
to threaten their traditional ways of thinking and doing things. There are
some notable exceptions to the rule, but I haven't seen too many. The
sustainable agriculture movement seems to represent such a threat to both
industry and extension.
Sustainable agriculture in not anti-science, anti-technology, or
anti-progress. But answering the obviously legitimate questions of
sustainability will require a fundamentally different kind of science than
the accepted science of today. A sustainable agriculture will require
technologies that work in harmony with nature rather than continue the
current futile attempts to conquer nature or at least bring it under
control. Perhaps sustainable agriculture can be accurately labeled as
anti-industry, but only because the new science and new technology of
sustainability will result in something fundamentally different from the
industrial model which has dominated the past two centuries. Real progress
means moving beyond the past and present to a future that is fundamentally
better. Sustainability is not about going back, but rather is about truly
going forward -- instead of remaining stuck developing new technologies to
support models, paradigms, and worldviews that are hopelessly out of date.
Worldviews -- perceptions of how the world works -- are not matters of fact,
but rather are matters of belief. You can't prove that any particular
worldview is correct and another is false because all methods of proof are
based on specific worldviews. All science starts with a foundation of
beliefs - with values. Our values reflect our beliefs about how we think
the word works - our worldview. The currently accepted "scientific method"
is based one specific worldview. It has been widely accepted because a lot
of "scientists" - over the past four centuries or so - have believed in that
particular worldview. But, a lot of people believing in something doesn't
necessarily make it true. A lot of people believed the clerical scholars of
old possessed the only true worldview before this thing we now call science
was conceived. People back then accepted this new thing called science
because a lot of what the clerics were telling them just didn't make sense
anymore. Today, a lot of people are becoming skeptical of, if not outright
rejecting, what we now label as science because it simply doesn't make sense
anymore. We need a new science that makes sense in a world where our
common sense tells us that we humans are both capable of and inclined toward
destroying the living global ecosystem of which we ourselves are a part.
The new, still evolving, worldview is one of a living, dynamic, interrelated
global ecosystem operating according to inviolate principles of nature -
including human nature. Thus, the new science must be a science that is
appropriate for such a living system, of which people are but a part. The
old science, even according to its creators, applies only to "dead" things.
The old science views people as something apart from the rest of the world.
The new science must value people, but people as a part of the larger whole.
The new technologies must create opportunities for people to lead productive
successful lives, rather than simply replace people with computers and
robots. New science and technologies must with work in harmony with nature,
including human nature, rather than attempt to conquer and control nature
for our sole benefit.
Forcing people off of farms for purely economic reasons makes sense to those
who hold the old worldview, but not to those of us who now have a
fundamentally different view of reality. "Freeing" people from farming -
or from anything else that requires thinking or any manual work - makes
sense to those who hold the old worldview, but doesn't make sense to those
of us who now hold different values. Attempting to dominate nature, and to
thereby control markets and peoples' livelihoods, through use of GMOs may
make sense to those who hold the old worldview, but doesn't make sense to a
lot of the rest of us. And attempting to "feed the world with pesticides
and plastic," as advocated by Denis Avery and his followers in the Land
Grant system, may make sense to "old-think scientists" but it doesn't make
sense to those who believe we must use new ways of thinking. The world's
hungry are no more likely to be well fed in the future that than they have
been in the past as long as we continue view technology, society, economics,
and politics as separate components of some sophisticated machine, rather
than as critically interrelated organs of a living system.
Once a person is able to shake off the old "dead world" belief system, it
becomes obvious that the science and technologies that support the
industrialization of agriculture do not make sense anymore. The industrial
system, quite simply, is not sustainable - no matter what new technologies
may be developed to support it. We don't necessarily need to be ashamed of
what has been done, or even what we may have done, in the past. People
generally do the best they can, given their current level of understanding
of reality. But, we shouldn't refuse to open our minds to the possibility
of new paradigms, new models, even new worldviews, simply because we have
spent most of our lives believing and working in ways that may now, quite
logically, be out of date. It's not the sustainable agriculture folks who
are clinging to the past, it's the agricultural establishment, including
industry, extension, and science.
In general, the discussions that take place on "sanet" represent challenges
to the old ways of thinking. Perhaps there isn't a balance of challenges
to and defenses of the old ways of thinking and doing. But, there is more
than adequate defense of the status quo elsewhere. The discussion should
remain open and civil to those with all worldviews or belief systems. But,
a concern for balance should not preclude or even discourage continuing
challenges to either the old science or the new technologies of
industrialization. Such discussions motivate the development of the new
ideas and concepts that will be needed to sustain agriculture and thereby
make possible the sustaining of humanity.
John Ikerd
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail