> Thought you might enjoy this post I noticed in sci.agriculture. My
> response should show up soon, but it would be nice to see some other
> responses (for those of you with Usenet access) countering the point of
> view of the Hudson Institute.
> >
> > There is a new book out by the Hudson Institute called Saving the Planet
> > with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield
> > Agriculture. It will make you think, and It will make a die-hard
> > environmentalist and nature lover think twice about condemning modern,
> > chemically based agriculture. It basically states that if we commited to
> > organic agriculture, we'd lose millions of square miles of wildlife
> > habitat to the plow in order to feed the increasing population. Check it
> > out. Call 1-800-Hudson-0 or 1-800-876-8011 to order. Keep thinking.
> >
> > Think Globally, Act Locally (the key word is think)
> >
> >
> --
> Robert Stevahn | Ours is not to feed the world. Let's learn
> rstevahn@boi.hp.com | to feed ourselves, then teach the world.
> Boise Food Connection | Population: Birth Control xor Death Control.
>
That argument is old, wornout, outdated and just plain dumb! You can
find a 15 year old version of that argument in CAST's (Council on
Agriculture Science and Technology) response the USDA's Report and
Recommendation on Organic Farming published in 1980. CAST published a
response, can't remember the reference.
Of course, I haven't actually *read* the report.....but its probably
not worth spending the time discussing it. Those that hold the view
that the plow is the only alternative to chemical agriculture are
making arguments based on some pretty shaking premises...
Yes, the key word is think.