I wanted to commend Howard Reetz on his willingness to offer
opinions that are not (in his estimation) in the majority in this
discussion group.
At the same time, I'm not sure why he'd be disappointed to learn
that there is a circle where people have opinions or viewpoints that
are different than his. In my experience as an educational and
agricultural communicator (23 and 10 years, respectively, since
we're showing our tenure tattoos), there are many more places to find
opinions and viewpoints about science and industry that--as someone
already pointed out--serve as boosterism for a certain vision of
science and industry. But do not invite opportunities for creative
rethinking of assumptions, as SANET does.
> After 25+ years in Extension and Industry agronomist positions, I
> find it difficult to sit back and read the attacks on the "system"
> that are included in this "list" without responding. It appears
> that this is really a forum for the anti-science, anti-industry
> people to post their ideas and their attacks on science and
> industry.
I would like to know who here is anti-science. "Science" comes from
the Latin /scire/, which means "to know." In my seven-plus years on
this list, I have witnessed many thoughtful people, working hard to
know their world, themselves, and their community better. "Science"
is not a monolithic construct. It is a complex human enterprise,
whose methods change over time, whose epistemologies are open to
reinterpretation, and whose established findings are open to
retesting and falsification. (In the Popperian sense.)
The implication that science is not open to critique, rethinking, or
challenge smacks of an historically earlier attitude about another
institution, called religion. And the implication that anything that
questions science cannot be rational makes rationality the sole
provenance of science--a common enough assumption in this age, but
quite flawed.
Harold, SANET is an Internet list server, where diverse people share
their thoughts. Those thoughts are not, contrary to your assertions,
a unified perspective. You may see a unity in that you disagree with
many perspectives here--but all that implies is a unity in *your*
perspective. I.e., that you think a certain way and few subscribers
here may agree with that. But the thousand or more people on this
list are very diverse, and some portion of them changes regularly, as
people subscribe and unsubscribe.
If you want a unified perspective that agrees with your own, I'm sure
there are plenty of media--including industry trade
publications--that would qualify. I understand that it can be
frustrating and daunting to learn about communities of people where
ideas are expressed that do not agree with one's own. But that seems
to be more a limitation of one's own tolerance than of others'
expression.
> Comments such as the importance of "values" in addition to
> science....implying that the progress we have made in agriculture
> has been at the expense of values. There also seems to be a
> general trend in this thread to looking for any negatives about
> GMOs and other technology.....implying that GMO is a BAD thing.
There are those in the SANET circle who believe GMO is a bad thing.
There are those here who haven't yet formed an opinion. There are
those here who believe it could have benefits. I can't believe that
you're suggesting that this list should have as its purpose the
quashing any thinking or expression that doesn't agree with your
own. Nor the artificial creation of a unified perspective, when this
medium is clearly not for that. This is a discussion area. And one of
the few ones that encourages wide-ranging expression.
> I had hoped this was a forum for a more balanced discussion and
> assessment of facts. I guess that is asking too much.
You are a new subscriber. Stick around a few years, and you'll see
that this also happens. Perhaps not to your 100% satisfaction, but
do remember that your needs and wants are not the only thing at
issue in this circle.
There've been times, over the years, folks have criticized this list
because it hasn't provided them with the thing they thought it
should. Yet, instead of sticking around and taking responsibility for
facilitating that thread of discussion or assessment, it tends to
happen that people holler, loudly, about what's NOT happening. And
then either fall silent, or go off and start their own discussion
groups, or whatever. One is left with the impression that they came
here to be agreed with, rather than to engage in dialogue. I suppose
approval is a good thing...but it, like reactionary disagreement,
rarely fosters creative growth.
> But I am concerned about the comments that the new technologies in
> agriculture are creating hazards and quality problems when there
> is no evidence to support such claims.
Again, stick around awhile, and be open to receiving and considering
such evidence when it's presented. If you have it in your head that
you are right, a priori, and that certain others are wrong, this
will not prove to be a comfortable discursive community for you.
Of course, there are those on this list who take that position
as the Resident Contrarians, but I digress. :^)
Challenging ideas is part of what happens here. If you a priori
believe that evidence offered from perspectives you don't share
therefore doesn't exist...well, there's not much anyone can do about
that. You are entitled to your perspectives. You are entitled to
deny the existence of those that you disagree with. Like any
communications technology, he Internet can be used as a powerful
buttress for solipsism, as well as for challenging, shaping, and
re-forming one's thoughts.
> Agriculture has changed and will never be the same as we remember
> in the "good old days", but the cause/effect relationship is not
> nearly so much a result of technology as it is our nations desire
> to have cheap, abundant and healthy food. We use technology to
> accomplish that better than any other nation in the world. Our
> success makes it possible for 98% of our population to NOT live on
> the farm and grow their own food. Were it not for the science and
> technology and the large-scale intensive production systems we have
> implemented over the past 50+ years, more people would be forced
> into growing food and thus would have less time to attack those who
> do grow it.
Your use of "we" here disturbs me. You are speaking, apparently, for
a collectivity whose membership is not clear. I know you're not
speaking for me. Nor for many of the farmers I have worked with for
the past ten years in the Upper Midwest.
Many of those farmers and aspirants to that profession, would not
consider growing food to be something they were "forced" to do. They
consider it dignified, meaningful, soul-nourishing,
community-building work. Not something to be escaped. And one of
their premier critiques of industrial farming is that it did in fact
alienate many people from agrarian lifestyles and communities that
sustained them.
And this supplanting happened in the name of profit, progress, and
efficiency.
Whose values are those?
> I am proud of the progress we have made in attacking pest and
> disease problems with reduced reliance on pesticides. Doing it
> with GMOs, with cultural practices, and overall systems management,
> we have a great story to tell. There is apparently a certain
> population who feel obliged to attack progress. They fought
> pesticides and when we replaced pesticide use with GMOs, many of
> the same people jumped from the anti-pesticide bandwagon to the
> anti-GMO bandwagon.
I can empathize with your frustration if you feel that you are an
agent of technological progress for which you deserve reward and
thanks. I recall how frustrating it was for Green Revolution
scientists to have their thinking challenged around things like the
introduction of pesticides and high-tech, high-capital farming into
nations that could not sustain that. I am hearing some
similar-appearing frustrations coming from the proponents of
industrial GMO technology. I.e., "we" are trying to solve the
world's problems--why are you criticizing us?
Harold, I don't know what to say about that other than remind you we
live in a free and open democratic society, where the questioning of
*any* set of ideas or values or actions is not only allowed, but part
of the fabric of this democracy. It is the creative tension of
rethinking and questioning that forms the most basic value of all:
free thinking. No one group of people holds a monopoly on the
truth--though you can bet there are intellectual property lawyers out
there who will try to run fence around even that one, eventually.
Truth is a collective enterprise, and it involves all kinds of
discourse.
I doubt that those who founded this nation were foreseeing the day
when corporations would foist proprietary techniques on the
citizenry, claiming it was for some greater good, without actually
checking that perception with those these techniques would affect.
Nor checking whether they, the citizenry, agree it is indeed for
their greater good. Never mind wilfully ignoring citizens'
perceptions that they simply do not agree with the technocracy.
However, I'm sure that all of them--from John Langdon thru Abraham
Baldwin--would take exception to the common assumption today: that if
a representative of a corporation, institution, or other powerful
organization SAYS a technology is good for everyone, then folks are
supposed to shut up and do as they're told. And I'd bet that they'd
take huge umbrage at the idea that common people, with common sense,
cannot think scientifically, nor provide meaningful critique of the
science of the experts.
> Another comment in this thread points out that many of the world's
> food problems are political, rather than production problems. That
> is true. And the kind of discussions this thread is fostering help
> to support those political problems.
You seem to assume that "production problems" are apolitical.
"Politics" derives from a Greek word meaning "citizen," later
generalized to the Latin word for government. In a democratic
society, the relationships and agreements between people--how they
agree to negotiate, share, and disburse power--is the fundamental
aspect of politics. Human relationships will govern how "production"
is conceived, designed, and executed.
My concern--which I've voiced many times in this circle--is that
this aspect of the big picture is being forgotten: we live in a
democratic, diverse society. Having more money or more power or more
degrees or more branch offices or more PR staff or whatever doesn't
mean doodly squish when you live in a society where citizens are
allowed to say what they think.
Including that they don't want any parts of GMOs. Including their
perception that certain agricultural interests are in the game for
money, power, prestige, and influence. Including their unwillingness
to have powerful people speak for their interests.
I've been thinking about this one a lot. Harold, a lot of the farmers
I work with earn less than $28,000 a year, are listened to by no one
but their neighbors, have no agenda of changing the world, and are
constantly ridiculed and ignored, either for the content of their
thinking or the way they express it.
I ask you: would you do, and keep doing, your current job if you were
making $28,000 a year or less?
Would you do it if no one listened to you, or didn't feel your
degrees or position meant anything?
Would you do your current job if you knew that you weren't changing
the World, but rather some small quarter-section of it? And then you
weren't so sure about that?
Would you do your current job if no one took your thoughts, opinions,
or perspectives seriously?
Think about it, please. Set aside your fixed assumptions. Including
your assumptions about the writers of the words you disagree with
here. And then return to SANET, and try LISTENING to what the
farmers, inspectors, processors, activists, policy makers, etc., on
this list are saying. I believe--based on years of experience
here--that there are many valuable ideas exchanged in this group. I
believe you will find that to be the case. They may not be *your*
ideas, nor ones you immediately agree with or understand. But value
is not measured in this way.
> There are also some anti-Avery comments that I am concerned about.
> Dennis has a pretty solid story that if it weren't for our use of
> technology, much more of the world's natural forest ecosystems
> would be turned into food production.
Since the debunking of several of his ostensibly "scientific"
assertions (most recently, his comments on E. coli in organic food),
you will find many people here not willing to take his word on much
of anything. Except, perhaps, his self-proclaimed role as
"contrarian."
> Our high yield management systems in the US can do much more to
> help save the rain forests and deserts and to protect fragile
> ecosystems than any other option we have before us. Most of our
> food crops could not survive in nature. Most of our agriculture
> could not survive without continuous infusion of technology. It is
> our success with technology that gives us the abundance and
> efficiency that allows more people to NOT be involved in food
> production. I doubt that you will find a large percentage of the
> 98% non-producers who would trade their life styles with going back
> to producing their own food.
You are setting up a big Man Of Straw here.
We at CIAS are constantly swamped with requests for information,
training, mentoring, internships, etc., from people who would love to
produce food for themselves and others. I had this same experience
over ten years as a community gardening activist in Wisconsin. In the
portion of each year that I spend in California, I see the same thing
in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas there. Is it a "large"
percentage? Damned if I know, but it's a sight more people than I can
help very effectively in a given month.
Look at your assumptions, Harold. These people who come to us for
assistance in getting into farming don't see growing as "going back."
They see it as going forward, into a future where their food security
is not dependent upon the dicta and perspectives of ever-fewer
increasingly powerful corporations whose main goal is an ROI to pass
along to stockholders. Or institutions whose decision makers wouldn't
know what end of a seed to put in the ground first if you dug the
hole for them. They see growing food as an act of grace, of
connection, and of human dignity. They don't see it as a "trade" of
anything. Except maybe the time they'd otherwise spend consuming
pointless, soul-murdering consumer drek through their eyes and ears.
And may I remind you of the many millions of people who *do* produce
their own food, but are not counted as farmers by the statistics
folks?
> Maybe instead of complaining about the direction of this list, I
> should just remove my name from it. For now, thanks for letting me
> vent my concerns.
You have the option both to withdraw from communications that trouble
you...as well as becoming part of that, both as a "venter"...and as a
listener. I would like to invite you to stick around for a year or
two. Stretch your tolerance a bit. You might learn something here.
And so might we, from you.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and also for considering mine.
peace
misha
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Michele Gale-Sinex, communications manager
Center for Integrated Ag Systems
UW-Madison College of Ag and Life Sciences
Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020
http://www.wisc.edu/cias/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such trifling investment of fact.
--Mark Twain
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