Hi Lion,
I am just going through your website, and my reactions are very
positive. I do have some points to raise:
1. The "have you tried it?" issue raised by others is very valid. I
know your response is that the individual elements have all been tried
somewhere. But still, it is important that the WHOLE SYSTEM be tried
likewise. You yourself say that synergistic effects cannot be
predicted from the individual components, because the whole is more
than the sum of its parts. I would add (maybe you said it too in one
of your pages) that beyond a certain level of synergism, entirely new
properties based on a new complexity emerge. I find your approach
consistent with the new science of complexity and self-organization.
This precisely underlines the need for some kind of a demonstration
system. I can understand if you can't do it yourself for various
reasons, but somebody else must do it -- set up a 1 hectare or so farm
using the principles of ecological synergy and observe the emergent
ecology and economy. Since the results cannot be predicted in advance,
you yourself may be surprised. In fact, you should consider demo farms
the next important phase in the emergence of ecological synergy as a
concept.
2. I am bothered by the trademark, which injects a commercial
proprietary element in what otherwise appears as an "unselfish"
effort. I can understand it, if your response is that you want to
prevent others from misusing the term ecological synergy once it gains
adherents. I wonder if there's a way of attaining this without a
trademark. Trademarks fall under the concept of intellectual property
rights (IPR) -- including copyrights and patents -- which are highly
monopolistic (and of course very selfish) concepts. If you try to
protect your IPR, you'll find yourself using the same kind of
arguments that Monsanto, Microsoft, etc. are using.
3. Pls change your formulation "the biodiversity today is much greater
than at anytime in the past" (or something like this). This is
obviously wrong and inconsistent with your other factoid that we are
losing 30,000 species a year to extinction. If the latter is true,
then unless more than 30,000 new species appeared elsewhere, the
biodiversity this year is less than a year ago, and the biodiversity
next year will be less than it is today. Clearly, the biodiversity a
few hundred years ago before we started razing our great forests was
higher than it is today.
Warm regards,
Roberto Verzola
Philippines
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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:11 EDT