I have been following the discussions on free speech (origins in
the BST disc.) with great interest. Finding my feelings
ricocheting from despondency (curtailment of freedom on a medium of
great potential) to hope (possibility of the network becoming a
tool for organizing and opening up communications), but very much
concerned about the rapid development and dissemination of this
technology and the potential for social control and curtailment of
speech that exists with it.
Recent postings to the network advocating the abandon of
emotionalism and science/corporation-bashing, etc., seem to
indicate that we have not yet come to accept diversity in
expression and interpretation. Results of scientific studies are
valuable and informative; equally as informative, however, are the
opinions and perceptions of a wide range of people - in this case,
the users of SANET.
The discussion currently run amock on this network is, in my mind,
heartening. What is being debated here is nothing short of a
debate on the nature of the society we would like to be living in.
Sustainable agriculture is a piece of the vision, as is freedom of
speech. To advocate limiting the discourse to verified scientific,
peer-reviewed information is to silence the voices of many users
who have valid and important points to make in these discussions.
One of the most restrictive measures in our society, which keeps
some folks in power and others out of it, is the notion that all
information must be dispensed following an arbitrarilly dictated
protocol (derived, it would seem, from the same folks who bring you
rational, deductive science as the only way of knowing and
experiencing the world). To advocate that networks be run in this
fashion is to advocate the imposition of a stratified heirarchical
virtual society.
My concern with the use of this technology runs deeper than the
recent events on SANET. As users of telecommunication
technologies, we all bear a responsibility towards the way in which
the technology is utilized, disseminated, and controlled. As well,
we have a responsibility to assure wide-spread access to this
technology. I question whether the networks, as currently
operating, are accessible to all people. For instance, how many
farmers are on SANET at present? vs. how many policy people and
academics? I challenge Mr. Hegyes to find this out. I also
challenge all of us to mobilize our collective resources to make
this medium of information sharing accessible to farmers, community
folks, everyone. It is our mutual responsibility to improve access
so that the exchange facilitated will account for a wide variety of
needs and opinions, so that the information exchanged will not be
only that reproduced in our hierarchical institutions and
corporate-funded laboratories.
The most recent issue of Z Magazine (a political monthly, not an
agricultural journal...but the issues are relevant here none-the-
less) carries two excellent articles concerning access to
information technologies. One of the most striking images
presented (in an Open Magazine interview with Prof. Herbert
Schiller) is that of the public library. Prof. Schiller states
"the public library has been one of the most progressive
institutions in American history...by and large, ...it's been a
much more democratic institution than others. And one of the
cardinal principles of the public library system is that
information is to be available for everyone, and it's to be
available without cost." Now communication technology is far from
free, and even those who utilize university systems will soon feel
the pinch (NSF will is to withdraw the annual $12mil that it grants
to internet as of 1994). More importantly, the Administration is
currently planning the sale of "long-term leases to frequencies on
the radio spectrum". The commercialization of public space, of the
air ways, is in the offing. I ask then, will the general public
have access to telecommunications information? Will sustainable
farmers have access to networks? Will low-income people have
access, as in access comprable to that of the public library? If
the answer is no, we will be adding a level of stratification to
our already stratified society -- that being, who has access to
information and who does not.
This does, in my mind, have direct bearing to the issue of rBST.
Does the public have access to the wide variety of information and
sources that has been presented over SANET these past few months?
We have been fortunate to have been presented with a wide range of
opinions and perceptions -- user chooses those pieces that will
impact individual decision-making. In general, the public is
handed the information that the government and the media choose to
mete out. My preference is to expand the variety of sources,
rather than contract them, both on and off the internet.
The public library carries a wide variety of information sources --
some of which are verifiable by peer review and standards or
`rigorous methodology'. Other pieces are not. It is the diversity
that enriches us. Communicating, sharing information and
interpretation, allows us as individuals to stretch our thinking.
As representatives of organizations and institutions, as members of
society, it is the constant stretching of parameters of thought
that allow for vibrant change and discovery. Institutions do not
think or act, but individuals within them do. Curtailing an
individual's voice because they are associated with an
institutional position will eventually serve to fossilize the
institution.
The thoughts above are mine only, and none can take them away
(though I'm open to changing them)
Sharon Lezberg