From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:31:46 1994 Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:19:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 09:36:56 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" , nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) On Friday, June 3, Steve Modena wrote: > I invite people to dig in at a really good library for these two books: > _The End of Economic Man: a study of the new totalitarianism_ > Peter F. Drucker > John Day Co., 1939 > > _The Future of Industrial Man: a conservative approach_ > Peter F. Drucker > John Day Co., 1942 > Do you suppose the Dust Bowl occurred because of sloppy practises, or > from the boom-bust cycle fostered by U.S. Government encouraging > high food prices to ramp up production during WWI and in its immediate > aftermath, followed by a drop-dead Federal ag policy when Europe's > ag sector made a miraculously fast recovery in the '20s? I think it also had to do with some unusually wet years in the 1920's. > WWII brought many significant and irreversible changes in our social / > governmental / educational / research / financial / communications > infrastructures. The common thread, according to Drucker (and he is > an acknowledged expert), was *new* ways of organizing human capital to > large scale goals. significant changes yes; whether they were irreversible or not is irrelevant; whether these changes are something that we can and should sustain is a relevant question, and one that Drucker seems to have decided the answer is "No" based on my reading of "The Post Capitalist Society" by the same Peter Drucker in 1993. In this book Drucker argues that we are in the middle of a reoganization of society that is so profound that we can't know where it is heading. In these matters, the alleged expertise of Drucker is largely an irrelevant issue. > He contends that industry was irreversibly restructured...ditto the > American universities....ditto agriculture...ditto transportation... > ditto communications...ditto the role of the government *itself*. > Drucker would agree and *emphasize* the need for a moral /ethical outlook, > but that it is useless if it contradicts or refuses to deal realistically > with large scale social realities...one of which is that 98% of humanity > would rather *not* live on a small (or large) farm. Any data on that? > _The End of Economic Man_ deals with the consequences of Western man's > *dispair* that neither socialism, nor communism nor capitalism satisfied > our inner needs nor provided stability in social-economic spheres. > As I read those two books, I could see that a great deal of the current > back-to-nature type talk about reforming "farming" is a continuation > of that despair...WWII and the Cold War only delayed and stalled a return > to those pervasive societal feelings of "Who am I; what is my place > in the Universe?" > Due to the magnitude of today's world population, ag production can > *only* be industrial in construction; In the most populous contries, most of ag production is not industrial in consturction. It is most industrial in construction in one of the least densely populated nations (USA). > and solutions to whatever we may > perceive as the negative side effects can either be "scientific" or > hysterical, according to how ready we are to precipitate world scale > societal disintegration. Either scientific or histerical? Only two options? Could there not be some non-hysterical, non-scientists? could there be some hysterical scientists? Is there even agreement among scientists about what should be done about the problems created by industrial agriculture? Is there even agreement among scientist on the question "What are the important questions in science?" never mind, what are the important issues facing humanity. > The true objective of ag today is to provide food, fiber and oil at > affordable prices with sufficient supply stability to allow the > other 98% of us to pursue life, liberty and happiness as we see fit. :^) ^^? Thank you for sharing your perspective. Are any other perspectives acceptable? Could agriculture also be a process of human communion with nature? Why do so many people who have been liberated from farms continue to garden so seriously? Is it possible that communition with nature provides some fundamentally important reference points to the questions you raise above: "Who am I? What is my place in the universe?" Could agriculture, broadly defined as "field care" (agri = field; culture = care), also involve not only the maintenence of food supply but also the care and maintainence of the ecological system which created productive land, and which we have no idea how future generations might want to use? What is affordable? If the 98% who are purchasing the food have no idea how it is produced, can they be responsible consumers? If some producres manage to produce a lower cost product by causing damage to the long term productive capacity of the land, might that not jepordize the ability of future generations to pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Should agriculture produce food regardless of what the other 98% believe is acceptable pursuits of happiness? What if the 98% believe that the only acceptable pursuit of happiness is that accomplished expanding human populations beyond any realistic assessment of human carying capacity? Obviously, you post raised more questions than answers for me. Greg McIsaac ////////////////////////// Gregory McIsaac Senior Research Specialist Agricultural Engineering University of Illinois 1304 West Pennsylvania Avenue Urbana, Illinois 61801 217-333-9411 217-244-0323 gfm@age2.age.uiuc.edu ////////////////////////// "To these elementary laws [of nature] there leads no logical path, but only intuition, supported by being sympathetically in touch with experience" -- Albert Einstein From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:32:01 1994 Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:21:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 3 Jun 94 11:02:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sustag Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) >Drucker would agree and *emphasize* the need for a moral /ethical outlook, but that it is useless if it contradicts or refuses to deal realistically with large scale social realities...< This is exactly reversed, as ethical people we need to analyze the large scale social realities in ethical terms and make decisions in relation to them based on our moral principles. We are not absolved of this responsibility just because these realities occur on a large scale. Quite the reverse it is precisely the large scale realities which have the most impact and therefore require a large share of our ethical attention. The civil rights movement is an example of the ethical application of action to a large scale social reality which had at its core massive injustice. The moral outlook flatly contradicted the reality of segregation and looking at America in 1946 the realistic way to deal with it would have been to accept it. But driven by an ethical imperative people like Rosa Parks refused to be "realistic". Similarly the people of Cezchoslovakia like Vaklav Havel chose the ethical response to the large scale social reality of totalitarian communism which contradicted communism, while most of his acquantiances chose the "realistic" way of dealing with it which was aquescence. Meanwhile Havel took the utterly unrealistic step of writing critical plays. Ultimately the large scale social reality collpased in large part because it was morally bankrupt and people knew it. I therefore reject the idea tha ethics are supposed to conform to expediency in the face of large scale social realities. >Do you suppose the Dust Bowl occurred because of sloppy practises, or from the boom-bust cycle fostered by U.S. Government encouraging high food prices to ramp up production during WWI and in its immediate aftermath, followed by a drop-dead Federal ag policy when Europe's ag sector made a miraculously fast recovery in the '20s?< Actually if you examine the historical record of agriculture in Kansas from the time of European settlement in the mid 19th century to the 1930s, as well as that of the other dustbowl states like Oklahoma, you will find that droughts and blowing dust were a feature of that area. Early settlers describe dust-storms which blackened the sky and required them to stay in door trying to seal out the blowing dust. These storms were a function of soil type, climate and the removal of the native prarie grass cover. They were occurring long before "the boom-bust cycle fostered by U.S. Government..." It was the attempt to bring this area under row-crop agriculture with little understanding of erosive process which caused the dust-storms. The storms themselves spaned the period until the adoption of anti-erosive land use practices as part of the SCS effort of the New Deal (BTW what does Drucker think of the New Deal?) . For a good reference on this which was written *during the era* see "To Hold This Soil" by Russell Lord 1938, Soil Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publicatin No. 321 USDA. >Due to the magnitude of today's world population, ag production can *only* be industrial in construction; and solutions to whatever we may perceive as the negative side effects can either be "scientific" or hysterical, according to how ready we are to precipitate world scale societal disintegration.< The industrial model of food production is not necessarily the *only* way to feed the worlds population. In fact in some instances the application of industrial methods to agriculture has undercut the productive base of agriculture leading to famine. In both China and the Soviet Union made large scale effort to shift argiculture to an explicitly industrial model, with disasterous results. In fisheries and in timber production the application of the industrial model has often led to over exploitation and the collapse of the resource base. The increasing specialization and industrialization of our own agriculture has increased the requirements of transportation and production level fossil fuel consumption. To the extent that our food system requires these fossil fuels it is vulnerable and not sustainable. It is therefore simplistic to put forward the industrialization of agriculture as a panacea. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:32:16 1994 Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:24:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 02:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From:nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu To: SUSTAG@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Cc: nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker > > Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 19:50:31 -0400 (EDT) > From: Ian S Howard > ... > > If I have Sims' piece pegged right I don't think we will have to worry (on > environmental grounds) about the next depression. He and others (e.g., > Wendell Berry) advocate more people on the land. That's how folks > survived the last major depression -- they had no money but they had food. If you are speaking of the U.S., you are clearly misstating U.S. demographic facts. > I realize that this doesn't apply to the Dust Bowl, but there is a good > argument that we should never have plowed that land to start with (see Wes > Jackson's perennial polycultures). Which land specifically are you speaking of? Or is "Dust Bowl" a slogan with fearsome appeal to those who weren't alive then and don't know all that was involved? > ..... Success at devising the correct moral > attitude to agriculture may well depend on getting everyone who eats > involved. During the last depression many more were. Granted, sloppy > practices exacerbated some of the problems of the depression, but many > practices (e.g., mixed rotational farming) were and are environmentally > beneficial; that is, they make soil and maintain fertility, and if Berry > is correct healthy families. Reading paragraphs like that (and you are fully welcome to your outlook), remind me of serious analyses based on real socialogical and economic facts of the era..... I invite people to dig in at a really good library for these two books: _The End of Economic Man: a study of the new totalitarianism_ Peter F. Drucker John Day Co., 1939 _The Future of Industrial Man: a conservative approach_ Peter F. Drucker John Day Co., 1942 Reading analyses of *the* era, written *during* the era can sometimes make one realize that people weren't so dumb about the trends of the times...and how "modern" those thinkers were. Though not a central topic, Drucker illuminates *why* agriculture in *Western* countries is an industrial activity...irrespective of fringe nostalgic farming activities...already a fact-of-life *prior* to the First World War...and that dislocations in the ag sector may have been as much due to *failure* to acknowledge that fact, as any other cause... excepting what Happened under Lennin and Stalin...but that is not the West, is it? Do you suppose the Dust Bowl occurred because of sloppy practises, or from the boom-bust cycle fostered by U.S. Government encouraging high food prices to ramp up production during WWI and in its immediate aftermath, followed by a drop-dead Federal ag policy when Europe's ag sector made a miraculously fast recovery in the '20s? WWII brought many significant and irreversible changes in our social / governmental / educational / research / financial / communications infrastructures. The common thread, according to Drucker (and he is an acknowledged expert), was *new* ways of organizing human capital to large scale goals. He contends that industry was irreversibly restructured...ditto the American universities....ditto agriculture...ditto transportation... ditto communications...ditto the role of the government *itself*. Drucker would agree and *emphasize* the need for a moral /ethical outlook, but that it is useless if it contradicts or refuses to deal realistically with large scale social realities...one of which is that 98% of humanity would rather *not* live on a small (or large) farm. _The End of Economic Man_ deals with the consequences of Western man's *dispair* that neither socialism, nor communism nor capitalism satisfied our inner needs nor provided stability in social-economic spheres. As I read those two books, I could see that a great deal of the current back-to-nature type talk about reforming "farming" is a continuation of that despair...WWII and the Cold War only delayed and stalled a return to those pervasive societal feelings of "Who am I; what is my place in the Universe?" Due to the magnitude of today's world population, ag production can *only* be industrial in construction; and solutions to whatever we may perceive as the negative side effects can either be "scientific" or hysterical, according to how ready we are to precipitate world scale societal disintegration. The true objective of ag today is to provide food, fiber and oil at affordable prices with sufficient supply stability to allow the other 98% of us to pursue life, liberty and happiness as we see fit. :^) Steve Modena nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:32:38 1994 Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 19:50:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian S Howard To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" Cc: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd) I'm not sure that it is correct to claim that we are the dominant component of the biosphere. Certainly, we look like the most destructive biological component (smallpox, malaria and a few others excluded), but clearly we're outnumbered by any number of other critters. If I have Sims' piece pegged right I don't think we will have to worry (on environmental grounds) about the next depression. He and others (e.g., Wendell Berry) advocate more people on the land. That's how folks survived the last major depression -- they had no money but they had food. I realize that this doesn't apply to the Dust Bowl, but there is a good argument that we should never have plowed that land to start with (see Wes Jackson's perennial polycultures). Success at devising the correct moral attitude to agriculture may well depend on getting everyone who eats involved. During the last depression many more were. Granted, sloppy practices exacerbated some of the problems of the depression, but many practices (e.g., mixed rotational farming) were and are environmentally beneficial; that is, they make soil and maintain fertility, and if Berry is correct healthy families. Ian UoG Guelph, ON. From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:33:21 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:15:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture (fwd)...Drucker (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 16:24:36-0400 (EDT) From:nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu To: SUSTAG@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Cc: nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethics in Agriculture(fwd)...Drucker (fwd) > > WWII brought many significant and irreversible changes in our social / > > governmental / educational / research / financial / communications > > infrastructures. The common thread, according to Drucker (and he is > > an acknowledged expert), was *new* ways of organizing human capital to > > large scale goals. > > significant changes yes; whether they were irreversible or not is > irrelevant; whether these changes are something that we can and > should sustain is a relevant question, I think your line of argument *presumes* that living on a small holding is *automatically* a socially sustainable economic mode...my grandparents left Italy and Lithuania before and after the turn of the century *precisely* because they were being devastated by a larger scale economic system that was "by passing" them...and deserate poverty was an irresistable impetus to "go to America." In fact, the pastoral life has a limited carrying capacity and the excess is redundant...and obligated to move on to something else or starve. The question is (for them): where to go, what to do. And ditto today for our urban populations! And from your other comments, I think we define "industrial ag" differently...soybeans, cotton, corn, etc are commodities that must be grown by systems that benefit from scale....tea roses must be grown by specialty operations....above all: the market system of today demands comformance to the system's rules. > ......................and one that Drucker seems to > have decided the answer is "No" based on my reading of "The Post > Capitalist Society" by the same Peter Drucker in 1993. In this book > Drucker argues that we are in the middle of a reoganization of > society that is so profound that we can't know where it is heading. > In these matters, the alleged expertise of Drucker is largely an > irrelevant issue. Well, I read "Post Capitalist Society" first, and dug out the others because he referred to them here and there....I wanted to see why he kept making references to things written so *long ago.* And I discovered that he was not recanting his earlier writings. (Drucker has been a significant thinker and contributer in the areas of industrial management science...coining concepts that are commonplace today.) But, I interpret Drucker's latest book is a significantly different light than you....WWII and the Cold War delayed in time the Great Questioning...today's discussions are a natural extension & continuation of debate in the 1930's and not so _de novo_ brain storming....and just as in the 1930's we could not know where where the Great Churning afoot would take us, neither can we foresee it for ourselves today...the World after 1939 underwent cataclysmic change and perhaps we will experience unimaginable change again...more so...and I'm not referring to war in *either* case. War was a bitter catalyst...hopefully we won't go that path again. Drucker claims a number of things in his 1993 book: We have failed to form a unified identity at the level of nation... and have taken up "group identities" of various sorts...some being ethnic, but others not. Capitalism, socialism and communism (Marxism) remain dead issues as before, but the *market place* will continue to play a central role... All significant economies will be "western" in style...not because it is culturally superior, but because it has proven to be the most efficient available among competitors...or as the Japanese say: we will import all the smart ideas we can find and make them "japanese." :^) New economic forces, such as Pension Funds, are groping their way to discover their social and economic *managerial* roles.... Narrow discipline expertise is ascendant...and umbrella information coordination will dominate: wealth creation will depend on new information specialities...actual manufacturing capacity will remain at 40% GDP while the *number* of people employed in that area will continue to drop...paralleling the *earlier* evacuation of on-farm employment! Drucker also believes that *social* product has come to be *more* important than economic product...and our struggle is to plan, implement and develop that social product sector of the Post Capitalist Society....that it can be seen as a clean slate, given how great the changes ahead are likely to be. And where does he place agriculture? :^) For the most part, it did not warrant any serious mention...in other words, it's been a "settled issue" since at least WWII. :^) Now we may not look at it as settled...but he really pays no attention to it. Ag is an environmental issue, in the way that smoke stacks and car exhausts are environmental issues...that's how the central political forces in our societes see them...so that is the new reality. Not so? Then why does the EPA now chase ethanol emissions from the stacks of Wonder Bread bakeries? In 2020, will you have to have a permit to bake a loaf of bread at home? :^) I highly recommend "Post Capitalist Society"...but continue to recommend reading at least "The End of Economic Man"...if only to cast the current book in historical terms...and to realize truly how much *revisionism* has become our societal norm Steve Modena nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:33:40 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:16:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Good facts...but why? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 20:04:15 -0700 From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Good facts...but why? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 17:29:04 -0400 (EDT) From:nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu To: SUSTAG@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Cc: Stephen Modena Subject: Good facts...but why? Jonathan's post has many good "details"...but I think misses it giving framework or context.... > > >Drucker would agree and *emphasize* the need for a moral /ethical outlook, > but that it is useless if it contradicts or refuses to deal realistically > with large scale social realities...< > > This is exactly reversed, as ethical people we need to analyze the large > scale social realities in ethical terms and make decisions in relation > to them based on our moral principles. We are not absolved of this > responsibility just because these realities occur on a large scale. Did I get it reversed? Both Drucker and I *assume* what you stated...probably most people do this within their scope of knowledge, realization and perceived field of action. Then there are the zealots who are going to impose their vision as "concensus." ...skipping over the collapse of "segregation" and the Evil Empire... > > Actually if you examine the historical record of agriculture in Kansas > from the time of European settlement in the mid 19th century to the > 1930s, as well as that of the other dustbowl states like Oklahoma, you > will find that droughts and blowing dust were a feature of that area. > ...followed by more specific historial detail.... > I questioned the use of "Dust Bowl" because I felt that it is being used as a political phrase... the technical explaination of the "Dust Bowl" *mechanics* is fine, but "Dust Bowl" is one of the sybolisms of the process that I mentioned indirectly: communications and economic interconnection...plus complete monitarization of all significant national economies...has posed the individual in the midst a social scale that is unfathomable to most people...irrespective of their education. > societal disintegration.< > ..... > > The industrial model of food production is not necessarily the *only* > way to feed the worlds population. In fact in some instances the application > of industrial methods to agriculture has undercut the productive base > of agriculture leading to famine. In both China and the Soviet Union > made large scale effort to shift argiculture to an explicitly industrial > model, with disasterous results. Well, yes....Marx, living in an *industrial* country (UK), which had already abandoned it's local argriculture...provided the model for a country (USSR / China) that was the *inverse* in economic structure! But is that important? Or was the rise of Stalinism...and the specific tyrannical methods used to impose his personal authority right down to the individual *everywhere* more important to understanding the "failure" of Soviet agriculture? And may I ask: was Soviet ag really industrial? Given that the Soviet peasantry had *no* industrial exposure...and virtually *all* of the central Communist apparatus was *totally* unfamiliar with the outside world...remember: Stalin never saw the World outside of the USSR and the very first people to be purged AT ALL LEVELS were those who had travel, studied, and worked abroad. No, Soviet ag was at best a holodeck recreation of what a Georgian imagined that Marx was talking about in 1850 England! > In fisheries and in timber production > the application of the industrial model has often led to over exploitation > and the collapse of the resource base. The increasing specialization and > industrialization of our own agriculture has increased the requirements > of transportation and production level fossil fuel consumption. To the > extent that our food system requires these fossil fuels it is vulnerable > and not sustainable. It is therefore simplistic to put forward the > industrialization of agriculture as a panacea. Well, I've offered no panacea. I'm going to challange your vulnerability-sustainability myth. Looking at Africa...the Ethiopian govement...as an example...has been able to impose starvation...ditto in Somalia and others...because these economies are *not* linked into the "high cost -- vulnerable -- non-sustainable" communications and fossil fuel economic system of the other part of the world that WILL NOT TOLERATE starvation in its societies. :^) Your argument backfires completely...starvation is possible anywhere that peoples--for whatever reason--fail to link up to the greater economic and communications powergrid of sustained, healthy, educated, productive, internetworked social-economic systems of the "western" type. The reality of China in the Cultural Revolution was large scale starvation... large scale starvation was *the* weapon of the Soviet regime under Stalin...the Marxist government of Ethopian *imposed* starvation... the so-called warloards of Somolia *imposed* starvation...ditto in Central American and South America...and in each case, the objective of the regime-in-power was to break/destroy any formative linkage of the local society-economy to the powergrid of the larger world economy.... an economy that at least recognises and values *interdependence* and civil cooperativity...while allowing reasonable self-determination. There is, therefore, tremendous *granularity* in today's world. When you say that "we" are vulnerable and dependent, you are unconsciously invoking images of Somalia on us. My view of history says that politics creates more misery than does the unsustainability of unscientific plowing practices in Stone Hill, MO. :^) > jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov > Have a nice weekend, Folks. Steve Modena nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:33:58 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:21:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Good facts...but why? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 07:44:58 -0700 From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: Good facts...but why? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 4 Jun 94 00:38:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sustag Subject: RE: Good facts...but why? (fwd) I questioned the use of "Dust Bowl" because I felt that it is being used as a political phrase... the technical explaination of the "Dust Bowl" *mechanics* is fine, but "Dust Bowl" is one of the sybolisms of the process that I mentioned indirectly: communications and economic interconnection...plus complete monitarization of all significant national economies...has posed the individual in the midst a social scale that is unfathomable to most people...irrespective of their education.< This is not the argument that you put forward, you implied that the cause of the dustbowl was the government intervention in agriculture before and after WW1. I was demonstrating that the dustbowl pre-existed these policies and thus could not be caused by them (although they might have exacerbated it), and that the dustbowl was ended by government intervention through the promotion of soil conservation techniques. Your argument mentioned nothing about symbolism, unfathomabl- ness or education. > I'm going to challange your vulnerability-sustainability myth. Looking at Africa...the Ethiopian govement...as an example...has been able to impose starvation...ditto in Somalia and others...because these economies are *not* linked into the "high cost -- vulnerable -- non-sustainable" communications and fossil fuel economic system of the other part of the world that WILL NOT TOLERATE starvation in its societies. :^) Your argument backfires completely...starvation is possible anywhere that peoples--for whatever reason--fail to link up to the greater economic and communications powergrid of sustained, healthy, educated, productive, internetworked social-economic systems of the "western" type.< As far as I can see you haven't addressed my argument. Essentially I am saying that there are physical constraints on agricultural production. Those physical constraints cannot be exceeded. If your agricultural system is dependant and fossil fuel, and you run out of fossil fuel, then your system will no longer function no matter what your society will or will not tolerate. If you can find a viable energy substitute then the situation has changed because you are no longer dependant on fossil fuel. It is quite possible for a market driven civilization to destroy its agricultural resource base and collapse, the area once called the fertil crescent has many examples of this. The dependance of industrial society on fossil fuel and its vulnerability to shortage have been evident since at least WWII. In that war access to oil dictated a large part of the strategy and to a great extent determined the outcome. The recent war in the Persian Gulf indicates how seriously this dependance is taken by policy makers. As the opponents of organic agriculture are so fond of pointing out, without mechanical production fueled by petroleum our current system of agriculture would collapse. There are other physical constraints as well. The quantity of arable land is not infinately expandable, nor is the readily available water which could be used for irrigation. Any agricultral system has to function within the bounds of these constraints or fail. Starvation in such a circumstance is entirely possible regardless of the form of government. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:34:20 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:22:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: ANNOUNCE: Soil Amendment Workshop (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 12:20:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Gabriel Hegyes To: SANET-mg Subject: ANNOUNCE: Soil Amendment Workshop ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 10:25:43 PDT From: peter stoddard To: ghegyes@nalusda.gov Subject: Bitl.sanet post Hi Sanetters, I would like to notify everyone of a workshop the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are holding in Sacramento on June 9, concerning soil amendments which are registered in California as fertilizers, but which some believe have pest suppressive properties. These properties cannot be advertised, because to do so would require that they be registered as pesticides. The purpose of the workshop is to capture as many of the ideas surrounding this issue as possible, in order to determine whether there is something we as regulators should do. You are invited to attend the workshop or, if that is not possible, I would like to get some of your ideas, either as a posting here, or by e-mail through econet or to pstoddard@cdpr.ca.gov. Here is some information about the workshop. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MEETING NOTICE WORKSHOP ON SOIL AMENDMENTS WITH PEST SUPPRESSIVE PROPERTIES Thursday June 9, 1994 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 1020 N Street, Room 215 Sacramento For information about the Workshop, please contact Peter Stoddard, California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), at (916) 324-4078, pstoddard@cdpr.ca.gov. Agenda Technical presentations 1. Manufacturers' perspective (15 mins). Dr. John Hsu, JH Biotech, Inc., Ventura 2. Users' perspective (15 mins). Mr. John Williamson, Mid-State Laboratory, Visalia 3. Technical considerations (15 minutes). Dr. Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soils Specialist, Department of Land Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis Policy Presentations 4. Summary of state and federal laws, regulations and policies relating to pesticides (5 mins). Jerry Campbell, Supervisor of Registration, DPR 5. Summary of state and federal laws, regulations and policies relating to fertilizers (5 mins). Maryam Khosravifard, Feed, Fertilizer and Livestock Drugs Branch, Division of Inspection Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) 6. Perspective of the fertilizer industry (10 mins). Steve Beckley, Executive Vice President, California Fertilizer Association 7. Pesticide Industry Perspective (10 mins). Robert Ehn, Vice Chairman for Regulatory Affairs, Western Agricultural Chemical Association Discussion 8. Moderated Discussion (50 mins). Paul Gosselin, Chief, Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring and Data Management, DPR, Moderator WORKSHOP ON SOIL AMENDMENTS WITH PEST SUPPRESSIVE PROPERTIES Introduction The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) are jointly sponsoring a Workshop on Soil Amendments with Pest Suppressive Properties. This workshop arose as a result of efforts by both DPR and CDFA to identify potential regulatory obstacles to the adoption of environmentally sound pest management practices. As a result of these efforts, several people suggested that some of the soil amendments which are registered as fertilizers in California have additional effects as pest suppressants. However, manufacturers cannot advertise these suppressive effects because to do so would constitute pesticidal claims, making the products subject to the laws governing pesticides. Purpose The purpose of the workshop will be to determine what changes to federal and state laws, regulations and policies should be made, if any, to reduce the risk of adverse effects of pesticides by encouraging the use of soil amendments with pest-suppressive properties. Scope The scope of the workshop will include soil amendment products which are regulated by CDFA, and which enhance soil quality. This excludes bulk materials and mineral nutrients and urea. Format The workshop will be moderated by Paul Gosselin, Chief, Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring and Data Management, DPR, and will consist of presentations on the technical and policy aspects of the problem, followed by a general discussion. Participants Dr. John Hsu, President, J.H. Biotech, Inc. in Ventura, conducting research, development, and marketing of micronutrient and biological products for plant and animal nutrition. Mr. John Williamson, President, Mid State Laboratories, Inc. in Visalia, a full-service industrial/agricultural analytical laboratory conducting analyses of many different media including soils, water, and plant tissue, and recommending applications of fertilizers and soil amendments when appropriate. Dr. Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soils Specialist in the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Meyer has been an adviser to CDFA on the subject of fertilizers and plant health for over 20 years. Mr. Jerry Campbell, Supervisor of Registration, and oversees the day to day operations of the Registration Branch in DPR. Ms. Maryam Khosravifard, Associate Review Scientist in the Feed, Fertilizer and Livestock Drugs Branch, CDFA. Maryam has an MS in Chemistry and also has experience in CDFA's Analytical Laboratory and DPR's Registration Branch. Mr. Steve Beckley, Executive Vice President, California Fertilizer Association. The California Fertilizer Association represents the manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers of fertilizer and soil amendments in California Mr. Robert Ehn, Vice Chairman for Regulatory Affairs, Western Agricultural Chemical Association. Bob is also Western Regulatory Affairs Manager for FMC Corp. Mr. Paul Gosselin, Chief of the Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring and Data Management, DPR. Paul was formerly the Director of the Division of Regulatory Services for the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, and joined DPR as Assistant Director in November, 1993. -- Peter Stoddard stoddard@netcom.com pstoddard@cdpr.ca.gov From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:50:29 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:28:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 11:03:56 -0700 From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Forwarded mail.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 94 12:51 EST From: Jim Worstell <0005355169@mcimail.com> To: Tom hodges Subject: Subject: the modena paradigm and its detractors Re: >Drucker would agree and *emphasize* the need for a moral /ethical outlook,but that it is useless if it contradicts or refuses to deal realistically with large scale social realities...< >The civil rights. . .Czechoslovakia.. .etc< The civil rights movement did not occur in the 1880s because it "contradicted or refused to deal with" the then existing Zeitgeist. Likewise, Czechs were not liberated in 1967 because the movement contradicted the existing "large scale social reality." So, in a manner of speaking, these moral stances were "useless" in an immediate sense since they could not accomplish their immediate objectives. But, using this same definition, they became "useful" in the 1960s and 1990s, respectively, when they helped to change the ways of thinking of enough folks. Similarly, we'll likely make little headway toward more sustainable agricultural systems (at least in the American South) until we can effect a paradigm shift among some farmers, agents and researchers--esp at NCSU--coupled with a different shift among environmental regulators and activists. This won't happen by trying to prove each other wrong--often resulting in hardening of positions or some just shifting the grounds of the debate. Instead we must create situations where contradictory viewpoints are stated, noone has the "power" to dismiss or ignore the contradictions, and all participants are (or can be cajoled into) working toward a new synthesis. What will the new synthesis be? Surely it will attack the Zeitgeists where they live. One lives in profit, the other in envrionmental purity. Can focusing on principles behind perfecting practices such as pre-sidedress nitrate tests and rotational grazing serve us better than the recent clashing of paradigms on this network? Maybe, except adoption of these practices seems to not depend on their technical validity but on lack of fit with unexplored aspects of farmers' systems (including philosophical schema). Jworstell 5355169@mcimail.com From london@calypso-2 Sat Jun 4 14:50:42 1994 Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 14:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry London To: sustag-public@twosocks.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Assumptions and the Post-capitalist age (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 11:04:08 -0700 From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: Assumptions and the Post-capitalist age (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 11:32:19 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" , nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Assumptions and the Post-capitalist age On Friday, June 3, Steve Modena wrote: > > > > WWII brought many significant and irreversible changes in our social / > > governmental / educational / research / financial / communications > > infrastructures. The common thread, according to Drucker (and he is > > an acknowledged expert), was *new* ways of organizing human capital to > > large scale goals. And I responded: > significant changes yes; whether they were irreversible or not is > irrelevant; whether these changes are something that we can and > should sustain is a relevant question, And Steve responded: "I think your line of argument *presumes* that living on a small holding is *automatically* a socially sustainable economic mode...my grandparents left Italy and Lithuania before and after the turn of the century *precisely* because they were being devastated by a larger scale economic system that was "by passing" them...and deserate poverty was an irresistable impetus to "go to America." And now I respond again: I was raising questions, not advancing a line of arguement. I do not presume that anything is automatically sustainable. I think sustainability is more of a question about the future, and that we can never proclaim any particular practice sustainable, because we can't know the future (not even Peter Drucker knows the future). Your arguement seems to presume that living on a small holding is automatically not sustainable. But there is a thriving Amish community 40 miles south of where I live in Illinois that seem to provide some evidence to the contrary. continuing my earlier response: > ......................and one that Drucker seems to > have decided the answer is "No" based on my reading of "The Post > Capitalist Society" by the same Peter Drucker in 1993. In this book > Drucker argues that we are in the middle of a reoganization of > society that is so profound that we can't know where it is heading. > In these matters, the alleged expertise of Drucker is largely an > irrelevant issue. Steve Responded: "Well, I read "Post Capitalist Society" first, and dug out the others because he referred to them here and there....I wanted to see why he kept making references to things written so *long ago.* And I discovered that he was not recanting his earlier writings. (Drucker has been a significant thinker and contributer in the areas of industrial management science...coining concepts that are commonplace today.)" I respond again: I did not intend to suggest that Drucker was recanting his earlier writing which I have not read. Rather I think Drucker was arguing that the organizational changes that brought about a degree of "success" in the capitalist/industrial age of say 1776-1960 (to which Steve referred in his original post), will not likely be appropriate for the post- capitalist, knowledge age. Drucker writes on page 106-8: "By 1970, information had begun to transform organizations... But today we have to go beyond the information based organization to the responsibility based organization... The old type organization assumed that the superior knew what the subordinate was doing - for the superior, only a few years earlier had occupied the subordinates' position. The knowledge based organization, by contrast, has to assume that the superiors do not know the job of the subordiates. They have never held it....It requires, in other words, that all members act as responsible decision makers. All members have to see themselves as 'executives.'" I think Drucker's prognostications about the future, which Steve cites, should be viewed as speculations, not inevitibilities. As Drucker himself writes on page 4: "To forsee what the post-capitalist world itself looks like is, however, risky still. What new questions will arise, and where the big new issues will lie, we can, I believe, already discover with some degree of probability.... Answers to most questions are still largely hidden in the womb of the future. The one thing that we can be certain of is that the world that will emerge from the present rearrangement of values, beliefs, social and economic structures, of political concepts and systems, indeed of worldviews, will be different from anything anyone today imagines." Best Regards Greg McIsaac /////////////////////// Gregory McIsaac Senior Research Specialist Agricultural Engineering University of Illinois 1304 West Pennsylvania Avenue Urbana, Illinois 61801 217-333-9411 217-244-0323 gfm@age2.age.uiuc.edu ////////////////////////// "To these elementary laws [of nature] there leads no logical path, but only intuition, supported by being sympathetically in touch with experience" -- Albert Einstein From breivog@ornews.intel.com Tue Jan 31 20:10:56 EST 1995 Article: 2972 of sci.agriculture Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!asuvax!chnews!ornews.intel.com!ornews.intel.com!not-for-mail From: breivog@ornews.intel.com (Bob Breivogel) Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,sci.agriculture Subject: Re: indicators of sustainability? Date: 30 Jan 1995 15:19:39 -0800 Organization: Intel Corporation Lines: 51 Message-ID: <3gjs6b$j69@ornews.intel.com> References: <3g83bg$654@rhino.cis.vutbr.cz> <3geke3$dta@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ornews.intel.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #8 (NOV) Xref: bigblue.oit.unc.edu sci.environment:50299 talk.environment:22072 sci.agriculture:2972 JimGlass@ix.netcom.com (James Glass) writes: >In <3g83bg$654@rhino.cis.vutbr.cz> zbynek@pok0.vszbr.cz (Zbynek Ulcak) >writes: >> >>Keywords: sustainability, sustainable agriculture >> >> >> Can anyone help help with the indicators of sustainability of >agricultural >>systems - indicators of environmental quality, productivity, and >socioeconomic >>viability? >> Any ideas, suggestions, refferences would be greatly appreciated. >> >> >>Zbynek Ulcak ULCAK@pok0.vszbr.cz >>Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry Brno >>Department of Landscape Ecology >>Zemedelska 1 >>613 oo Brno, Czech Republic >> >> >Sure: The more expensive, impractical, and unpopular a "system" is, the >more "sustainable". The goal here is not really to "sustain" anything; >in fact, quite the opposite. If the eco-nuts could persuade farmers to >begin tilling the soil by hand, using spoons instead of farm machinery, >then THAT would become the "sustainable agriculture" of choice. >Always glad to help out. >Jim Glass You're no help at all! I guess this is happens when everything is viewed >from an ideological perspective. In the case of farming, I think that sustainable *means * that the land will maintain its output, given *present* level of inputs, indefinitely. This means that Having to add ever increasing level of fertizers amd pesticides to stay where we are is nonsustainable. Organic farmers have shown that soil quality improves when chemical agriculture is replaced with "organic" methods. One does trade off greater labor costs (organic) for chemical/fuel costs (non organic), but labor is inherently "sustainable" (available indefinitely, as long as people exist), while chemicals are not. Bob Breivogel Aloha, OR s From RAYBURN@wvnvaxa.wvnet.eduWed Mar 13 11:59:05 1996 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:09:39 -0500 (EST) From: RAYBURN@wvnvaxa.wvnet.edu To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: RAYBURN@wvnvaxa.wvnet.edu Subject: Re: more sustainable This reply is a few weeks late and is in response to Ann and others relating to Crews et al. on sustainability. I recently read Crews et al.s paper (1991 Amer. J. Alternative Agr. 6:146-149). In general what they say supports the argument that for an agricultural system to be sustainable it must be sustainable on a Social, Economical, and Ecological basis. I know they would not agree, but follow my argument for a moment. The three components of sustainable agriculture can be diagrammed on an equilateral triangle. Put Social on left side (not political commentary but for the construction of an acronym that follows), Economical on the right side, and Ecological on the base. (The Ecological processes are the foundation of our life here.) It is an equilateral triangle because they all have to be considered. The terms are capitalized to give the acronym SEE. To SEE if an agricultural system is sustainable it must be sustainable Socially, Economically, and Ecologically. A system approach is needed! Crews et al. state that by equally weighting all ecological, sociological, and economic characteristics of what might comprise a sustainable agriculture, many authors have blurred the relationships among the components. We should not think of the Social, Economical, and Ecological components as being weighted variable as in an linear regression equation. Rather they are boundaries to a complex system. We have to think in a multidimensional framework and not linearly. As long as farming systems are within proper bounds they can be sustainable. The major questions are: what are the boundaries, what are the system functions and interactions, and how do we manage them to achieve the desired outcomes. Only by considering all three components (SEE) can we properly analyze the system and over time identify the problems and work our way to solutions. Yes a lot of relationships in life seem to be blurred. Isnt that why university professors get paid such high salaries to figure out the relationships. (I hope an attempt at humor wont get me burned.) Hard work and common sense can bring light to the problem. Most often we need the users or public, be they farmers or consumers, to bring the common sense into play. We need to be thinking more in terms of an optimization program not a linear regression. Then take it a step further and realize that the system is not only multidimensional but that it is also non-linear and has feed back. (Chaos any one?) If any one of the boundaries is pushed too far or too long the system will crash. This is an ecological principle. Social Crews et al. appear to recognize social problems are a factor in developing a sustainable agriculture. They argue that society cannot be organized in ways that force farmers to adopt practices that violate ecological constraints. Society should not be so organized, but some times it has been. Also they state that We contend that a rigorous and unambiguous definition of what comprises an ecologically sustainable agriculture is critical for evaluating the current situation and future direction of society. Again to do this we have to get into the social arena. What is ecologically sustainable to the catfish is not sustainable to the trout. Who and how are we (society) going to determine what is the proper ecological goal for a given area? A professional acquaintance of mine from Brazil once asked; What right do people from the US have, to tell us how to develop our resources. People will have to have dialog and even economic trade offs to manage the local and global system. As we learn from nature and from each other we may find that our future direction has to change again and again. Also they voice support for work on social organization to maintain sustainable land management. Further they discuss other conditions that must be met if farm productivity is to be maintained over the long term: maintenance of soil fertility, preservation of water supplies, protection of human health, and conservation of species diversity On soil fertility they imply that plant nutrients must be returned from the cities to the farms. This requires consideration of social and economic realities that exist. Those social issues which affect the implementation of sustainable food production systems have to be addressed if such systems are to be established. Economic Crews et al. show that they are aware of the need for a system approach to a sustainable agriculture. We think that the profitability of and agroecosystem is so tightly linked to the social structure of agriculture and ecological components of sustainability that it should not be considered a criterion in itself. Any of the components taken in itself is like only one of the 5 proverbial blind men describing the elephant. Their final conclusion was (W)e propose that economic profitability not be considered a necessary condition of agricultural sustainability, but rather an indicator of the extent to which a society is operating within critical ecological constraints. They dont say how they propose to do that. In the long run if it is not profitable by some measure it will not continue. The measure of profitability may be money, human energy in relative to food energy out, or it may be the choice of life over death. Ecology Crews et al. state: We have held that agriculture sustainability is ultimately delimited by ecological constraints. The ecological aspect is the foundation of sustainable agriculture. If farmers are made aware of the effect of production practices on water quality they will be the first to want to change their management to make it more sustainable. They know that it is also their environment. The most vocal proponent for keeping nitrates out of ground water, that I know, is a woman member of the Farm Bureau. This was after being part of a well water testing program in her county. They do well in using energy balance as a major criteria for measuring farming system output relative to the fossil fuel input. the sustainability of an agricultural system depends on the farmers capacity to capture more solar energy in the harvest than he or she uses to plow, irrigate, and perform other energy requiring practices involved in growing the crop. .. a significant net solar energy capture has to be made by the farming system as a whole. All of agriculture is based on the harvesting and marketing of sunshine in a modified form. We can say that a farmer sells three things: sunshine, labor, and management. In their discussion of the ecological aspects of sustainable agriculture they left out one large point. Humans are a major part of the earths ecology. Due to our superior ability to make tools we are the one animal that has the ability to destroy or repair the environment on a large scale. However, do we have the intelligence to learn how to control our appetites and preserve the environment? An integral part of our species behavior is our complex social systems. Part of our social systems are our economic systems. It can be argued that social and economic constraints on sustainable agriculture are a subset of ecological constraints. A few centuries ago if a society didnt live within the ecological constraints of an area, it moved out or died out. Today in our global village we have no where else to move. So we have to learn to live within the ecological constraints or..... Universities provide information - society has to solve the problem. In their conclusion they state their objection to unification of all three constraints under one term. Many of the issues subsumed under sustainable agriculture could stand alone, and indeed should be recognized as intrinsically desirable social values. Grouping so many diverse and even conflicting objectives obscures the sobering implications of what constitutes an agriculture that can endure indefinitely. This appears to be the standard university approach of putting every department in its own building and ever discipline in its own pigeon hole. We have to break that mold. This is a system problem, like it or not. Some professionals work only at the discipline or sub- discipline level. That is OK we need those types of people. Others prefer and are capable of working at the system level. We need them also. It is difficult to do true interdisciplinary team research, but it can be done if you can form real teams. I do not recommend that ecologists or agronomists try to solve the social problems constraining production agriculture but they should take part in the system discussion. Ultimately society must make the call on how we are going to develop a sustainable agriculture. Should we extend this whole thing to sustainable consumerism. It really is more than just food at issue here relative to environmental quality and quality of life. The process that we have may not be perfect but it is a good start. Open education of the public (we all have our biases and yes Im in Extension) and representative political systems will provide progress in the right direction. People from all walks of life (university, political and private) need to be involved in the study, development, and implementation of a sustainable agriculture. The ecological principles of a sustainable agriculture need to be identified, used in the development of production and marketing systems that are economically viable and socially tolerable to producers and consumers. Not all ecological, economic, and social problems need to be solved, since not all of them are due to agricultural production and distribution. A sustainable agriculture will be achieved by the incorporation of new more sustainable components into our current system. When an improved component is introduced enough people have to bement it and it needs to be profitable enough to pay for its implementation. Crews et al. state that moving toward sustainability and being sustainable should not be considered the same. I disagree with that statement and agree with the statement made some time ago on the net that sustainability is a process and not a destination. We have to grow into a sustainable agriculture. As our knowledge increases our view of what is sustainable needs to change with our knowledge. Ed Rayburn Extension Forage Agronomist West Virginia University P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown WV 26506 304-293-5229 From WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.eduThu Mar 14 12:24:31 1996 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 12:26:32 EST From: Willie Lockeretz To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Discussion articles on sustainability As editor of American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, I am delighted that several articles we have published on fundamental aspects of agricultural sustainability have provoked interesting discussion and comment, most recently the extended response by Ed Rayburn to the article "Energetics and ecosystem integrity: The defining principles of sustainable agriculture", by Timothy Crews, Charles Mohler and Alison Power [AJAA 6(3):146-149 (1991)]. Those of you who don't regularly see AJAA may be interested to know that this is one of a many we have had on the same general theme. Others include: "Sustainability isn't enough" by Vernon Ruttan [3:(2-3):128-130 (1988)] "What is alternative agriculture?" by Pierre Crosson [4(1):28-32 (1989)] "What is alternative agriculture?" by J. Patrick Madden [4(1):32-34 (1989)] "Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture" by Patricia Allen, Debra Van Dusen, Jackelyn Lundy, and Stephen Gliessman [6(1):34-39 (1991)] (This article has received discussion on SANET already) "Assessing the character of agricultural production systems: Issues and implications" by Sandra S. Batie and Daniel B. Taylor [6(4):184-187 1991)] "Some ideas and guidelines for research on ecological agriculture" by Joachim Raupp [9(1-2):84-87 (1994)] The last of these appeared in a double issue devoted primarily to papers from the Conference on Science and Sustainability, organized by Washington State University in 1993. Many of these were concerned with specific projects that in one way or another reflect the more general issues discussed in the papers listed above. It seems, as Koheleth the Preacher might have said: "Of making many papers on sustainable agriculture there is no end." But judging by the continuing discussion here, I don't know whether SANET-ers would accept his conclusion: "Much study is weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter." William Lockeretz From benbrook@hillnet.comSun Mar 17 22:35:09 1996 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:54:46 -0500 From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Respone to John Ikerd I remember maybe 6 or 8 years ago hearing John Ikerd deliver his three legs of the stool lecture. I have not learned much since about the essential dimensions of sustainability. They existed before John's thoughtful 3-leg analogy, and will exist long after we are all gone. I do tire of the discussions about sustainability, paradigm shifts, etc., as does Pat Madden and many others who have been involved in this "discussion", or reflection for a long time. Paradigms do not shift because people conduct research and publish in peer reviewed journals information that shows paradigms need to or should change. Paradigms are rooted in the real world. They change when the world changes. I am interested in more discussion about real world things happening on farms. The paradigm will shift only after what farmers are doing has shifted. This is because paradigms can be and are sustained by people, industries, gov't and private funders, the church, and others who are willing to invest energy, time, resources in communications designed to defend the old and raise questions about the new. So, any more thoughts out there about the role of microbial communities in creating disease and weed suppressive soils? I see in the latest issue of the J. of Soil and Water Cons. an article on soil P levels and when regulation should kick in. The bottom line has major consequences on how long a mega-pork operation can function in a given place (maybe 10-15 years if soil P not elevated to start). Everyone interested in public health policy and regulation should first read Theo Colborn et all book re endocrine disruptors, "Our Stolen Future", before you let your mind be influenced by what anyone else says about it. Its really a fun read, in any event. I am doing research/analysis on endo. disrutpting pesticides and the bottom line is sell Monsanto/Dow, buy IPM. Paradigms are sort of like religions. They do not change because of pressure from the outside. Its a more organic process. From GFM@age2.age.uiuc.eduSun Mar 17 22:35:59 1996 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:22:00 CST From: Gregory McIsaac To: Charles Benbrook Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Respone to John Ikerd Charles Benbrook wrote on Sat, 16 Mar 1996: > Paradigms do not shift because people conduct research and > publish in peer reviewed journals information that shows paradigms need to > or should change. Paradigms are rooted in the real world. They change when > the world changes. ....and later... > Paradigms are sort of like religions. They do not change because of > pressure from the outside. Its a more organic process. > I agree that there has already been too much repetitive disucssion of the need for paradigm shifts for sustainability. But, if we agree that a paradigm shift is important to implementing a sustainable agriculture, then I think it might behoove us to understand the nature of this "organic process". It seems to me that two of Charles' statements are contradictory: paradigms shifts "when the world changes" but they don't change due to outside pressure. I have been recently reading and thinking recently about academic and ethnic cultures. There may be enough similarity between the phenomenon of ethnic culture and paradigms so that scholarship in social psychology and anthropology may be useful for understanding and fostering paradigmatic shifts. The book I have found most helpful in understanding the ethnic culture is "Culture and Social Behavior" by Harry C. Triandis (1994, McGraw Hill). According to Triandis and other reserchers, some ethnic cultures appear to be "tight" in that they are relatively intolerant to deviation and change. These cultures are often found in geographically isolated settings. Loose cultures, i.e., those that are more tolerant and open to deviation, are often found at geographic cross roads. Thus, it would appear that intercultural interaction promotes an openness to change. Part of the book is devoted to techniques that are used to promote positive intercultural communication which include: 1) understand the nature of your own cultural values and outlook, and learn to see it as one possible way of understanding and behaving in the world rather than as the only correct way of understanding the world. 2) understand the how people of the "other" culture view their own culture (goals, the importance of social relations, mythologies, heros, festivals, etc.) and learn how to explain the other culture as a native would 3) understand how people of the other culture view your culture Doing these things may help us to structure our messages to "the other" so that we are better understood and possibly more acceptable. Just a suggestion. Greg McIsaac From ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Sun Mar 17 23:19:09 EST 1996 Article: 11390 of alt.sustainable.agriculture Path: newz.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway From: ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca (E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor) Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Subject: Re: Is sustained-yield sustainable? Date: 17 Mar 1996 01:10:23 -0500 Organization: Crop Science, The Univ. of Guelph Lines: 22 Sender: daemon@newz.oit.unc.edu Distribution: world Message-ID: <3F339C24586@csnet.nw.uoguelph.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: fddinewz.oit.unc.edu I sympathize with your position. I did my dissertation research at CIAT, on Colombia, and while the people there did not look very much like me, their earnest, hardworking faces and strong, compassionate hearts are indelibly imprinted on my mind. Were they poor? Yes, if one considered that many did not pretend to know where their food would come from tomorrow. But no, if the assessment included more than material goods. I often thought that they were much saner than we Americans, because they worried about real things - how to get medicine to sooth a sick baby or heal an aging relative - while we worry about whose dog shit on our lawn. Something has gone very wrong. Have you read the book entitled *Ishmael*? It is very stimulating and provocative in trying to discern why we humans are destroying the earth, told through the eyes of a sentient ape. Very compelling and worth reading. Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From jnovak@acenet.auburn.eduMon Mar 18 22:11:55 1996 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:30:56 -0600 (CST) From: "James L. Novak" To: Charles Benbrook Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Respone to John Ikerd I believe there is some misunderstanding of the role of science in this thread. Science to me is the process of discovery. (There's also the alternative view, as suggested by a colleague, that Science is a magazine.) It's always been my perception that, at least in the hard sciences, the engineers were supposed to come up with the solutions to problems discovered by the scientists. Problems and discovery in social science get messy because of the random human element. When you combine the hard and social sciences, as in sustainable ag, the process of discovery becomes messier, the necessary paradigm more complex. Paradigms are simply models. Grad classes on philo. of social science deal (ad-nauseum) with the subject of whether science ought to only look at "what is" or wether it should be in some way "prescribe" solutions to problems. Take the model of the 3 legged stool (and add more legs if you want). The perceived problem is that one of more of the legs is (are) being kicked off. Is it the role of science to prescibe methods of reattaching legs or the role of science to identify the problems? I agree to what I think Charles is saying, (and I think that is) scientists can identify the problems (and develop models or paradigms to discover those problems) but only as they exist in society. If you step beyond that role, you ought to call yourself an engineer and not a scientist (unless you're a magazine, and I promise not to butt in again). Jim Novak On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, Charles Benbrook wrote: > I remember maybe 6 or 8 years ago hearing John Ikerd deliver his three legs > of the stool lecture. I have not learned much since about the essential > dimensions of sustainability. They existed before John's thoughtful 3-leg > analogy, and will exist long after we are all gone. I do tire of the > discussions about sustainability, paradigm shifts, etc., as does Pat Madden > and many others who have been involved in this "discussion", or reflection > for a long time. Paradigms do not shift because people conduct research and > publish in peer reviewed journals information that shows paradigms need to > or should change. Paradigms are rooted in the real world. They change when > the world changes. > I am interested in more discussion about real world things happening > on farms. The paradigm will shift only after what farmers are doing has > shifted. This is because paradigms can be and are sustained by people, > industries, gov't and private funders, the church, and others who are > willing to invest energy, time, resources in communications designed to > defend the old and raise questions about the new. > So, any more thoughts out there about the role of microbial > communities in creating disease and weed suppressive soils? > I see in the latest issue of the J. of Soil and Water Cons. an > article on soil P levels and when regulation should kick in. The bottom > line has major consequences on how long a mega-pork operation can function > in a given place (maybe 10-15 years if soil P not elevated to start). > Everyone interested in public health policy and regulation should > first read Theo Colborn et all book re endocrine disruptors, "Our Stolen > Future", before you let your mind be influenced by what anyone else says > about it. Its really a fun read, in any event. I am doing > research/analysis on endo. disrutpting pesticides and the bottom line is > sell Monsanto/Dow, buy IPM. > Paradigms are sort of like religions. They do not change because of > pressure from the outside. Its a more organic process. > >