For Christ sake Dale. Factory farming a straw man? Give me a break.
> Your real agenda is social not biological, a
>vision of egalitarian pastoral bliss informed by the ideology of the
>academic left, rather than a firm grasp of history or biology.
Think about that statement Dale. If you want a "straw man" reductionist
scientists have invented to justify their "science wars" try the "academic
left". What on earth is that?
Sorry I just think you are way off base.
At 08:40 AM 3/15/00 -0600, Wilson, Dale wrote:
>Ronald,
>
>> Organic agriculture is the agriculture of the future. Academics have
>> just never been able to swallow that; as the organic commerce grew
>> to over 5 billion dollars they continue to huff and grump and say
>> there's 'no scientific evidence'.
>
>I agree that "organic" foods have a bright future, and I admire the good
>quality organic produce that has begun to appear in the supermarket. What
>irritates me is your tendency to lump all these practices into a single
>monolithic entity that we are supposed to accept unquestioningly. Isn't
>this a common political tactic? Like a party that formulates a platform,
>the organic true believers try to execute a power play. You seek to
>establish the terms of the debate in expansive, emotive vocabulary, words
>that are actually quite empty of biological meaning.
>
>Rubbing shoulders with mainstream agricultural research people, I never see
>anybody huff and grump or dismiss "organic" agriculture en toto. Most
>people in the research establishment are too focused on the biology at hand,
>and the social dynamics of their peer group, to pay much attention to
>elaborations of folk-culture.
>
>Lots of researchers (including myself) routinely evaluate specific practices
>associated with "organic" agriculture. Many of these things are not real
>practical or efficacious, and people at the universities tell it like it is.
>This doesn't mean that they are ideologically opposed to these practices.
>What you call "organic" agriculture is an identifiable entity in a
>political, not a biological sense. Your intense partisanship and glib
>rejection of their rather hallowed institutions is what raises the ire of
>agricultural scientists.
>
>> If 'science' can't or won't show the differences between responsible
>> organic agriculture and factory farming then it's science that's off
>> base, simply refusing to look at the issues.
>
>And this represents the rest of the partisanship you exhibit, raising the
>straw-man of "factory farming." I don't believe there is any reasonable
>place to draw a line between "responsible" agriculture and "factory"
>farming. Many large-scale operations are environmentally responsible, while
>many small farmers are not. Your real agenda is social not biological, a
>vision of egalitarian pastoral bliss informed by the ideology of the
>academic left, rather than a firm grasp of history or biology.
>
>Nevertheless, I agree that agricultural scientists do need to try harder to
>look at the larger issues, political, as well as biological. But I doubt
>they will jump on the organic ag bandwagon, because it is an unwieldy
>contrivance.
>
>Dale
>
>
Ronald Nigh
Dana, A.C.
Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF)
529-678-72-15 (Chiapas)
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
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/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:28 EDT