[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
re: Conventional resistance to organic
i certainly hope that bart hall will be around to see how it all turns out,
but i'm not as optimistic as he is about just how it will turn out
bart wrote: ". . . By 1975, any geologist disputing the truth of Continental
Drift was lumped in with the Flat Earthers.
I guess that's why I'm such an optimist about the ultimate outcome of
the sustainable approach to agriculture -- it will take longer, and
be more viciously opposed because there is *so* bloody much money
involved in maintaining the status quo, but I'm betting my career on
the idea that in fifty years the people currently screaming that
sustainable agriculture is evil because it violates economic rules
will be seen in much the same light as those opposing Copernicus
because his ideas violated the religious assumptions of the time.
With luck, I'll still be around to see how it all turns out."
it seems to me that hall has simply worked his way around to the situation
that has been discussed on this list on one or two previous occasions (e.g.,
by gil gillespie and others) . . . not knowing much about geology, my sense is
that tectonics became widely accepted because it worked, both in the sense of
basic science and in the sense of applied geology . . . as basic science,
tectonics explained a lot of observed phenomena; as applied science, tectonics
helped petroleum companies find hydrocarbon deposits, and helped metal mining
companies locate seabed mineral sources . . . thus i would suggest that the
mainstream opposition to tectonics dissolved because tectonic based models
facilitated corporate profits
and there, as others have pointed out previously, is precisely the rub for
sustainability . . . suppose sustainability is accepted because it facilitates
the accumulation of corporate profits . . . then corporations will maintain or
increase their presence in the input, production and output subsectors of the
agrifood system; and agriculture will be even more industrialized than it is
now . . . but it is industrialized agriculture that has generally been
perceived to be not sustainable . . . therein seems to me to lie the paradox
cheeers,
craig harris
dept of sociology
michigan state university
Follow-Ups: