In Defense of Duesing and alternative world views

Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr. (gwg2@cornell.edu)
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:31:37 -0400 (EDT)

I was very interested in Bob McGregor's responses to Bill Duesing's posting
on potatotes. My initial reaction to McGregor's first posting was that he
was one of those who Claire Gilbert has called "goons of the
internet"--phoney greenies (often in the employ of pollutors) planted on
environmental lists to dispute claims of environmental problems and disrupt
such lists with flares. As I read on, I began discounting that hypothesis
and became more convinced that McGregor was among those SANETters who
represent the green wing of conventional agriculture.

I am glad that a variety of perspectives on sustainable agriculture appear
on SANET because this may offer us our best hope of working together to
advance sustainable agriculture in the face of ecological, technical, and
social uncertainties. I do think, however, that such advancement will be
substantially retarded if we do not consider presuppositions that underly
the different perspectives on sustainable agriculture. These
presuppositions related to such matters as the importance of economic
efficiency, the significance of biodiversity, risks posed by agricultural
chemicals, and what constitutes social justice. Out of the presuppositions
and practical knowledge about agriculture comes visions for the future of
agriculture. Unlike McGregor, I think that the presuppositions, the
visions, and the practical details of making these visions realities should
all be topics of discussion over SANET. Only after having in-depth
understandings of those taking different positions can we have meaningful
dialogue.

My assessment is that Duesing and McGregor have very different visions about
what agriculture should become. I see that Duesing's vision for agriculture
is local, diverse, and under the control of the people supported by that
agriculture. He is an environmental educator whose column has been
appearing on SANET for some time. I did not regard the latest column as
being perceptibly more radical (from the standpoint of those adhering to the
greener side of the conventional agricultural paradigm) or any more
provocative than previous ones. His goal is to make us think about our
current food system and possible alternatives that would be more
sustainable. I see that McGregor vision is for an agriculture not greatly
different from what we have now, except that the negative side-effects of
practices would be minimized in balance with economic considerations. He
describes his own social situation his last posting.

What is your vision for agriculture and our food system? What are its
advantages and disadvantages compared to alternative visions?
****************************************************************************
Gil Gillespie voice: 607-255-1675
Department of Rural Sociology (& fax: 607-254-2896
Division of Nutritional Sciences ) e-mail: gwg2@cornell.edu
439 Warren Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
USA

The transition to sustainability is like a bend in the road. It will be
the end of the road only if we fail to negotiate the turn.
****************************************************************************