Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture

From: [email-masked] (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 16:41:59 GMT

This is a follow on post to my previous reply to Chris Overton. 

>If this a scientific study, then you had better come up with a 
>precise definition of what it means to be `sustainable' 

I think that I have addressed the issue of a precise definition
of sustainability in the first post. I fail to see what portion
of the original post implied that no precise definition was
operative. On the face of it, the original request for information
seems to be clearly stated and the historical examples 
further specify what is intended. 

>If this is merely an historical analysis, then of course feel 
>free to define `sustainable' in whatever way conforms to 
>your current bias.

I also fail to see why a historical investigation is a priori 
less important than a scientific one (surely paleontology is 
simply one long historical investigation), or why a 
historical investigation is necessarily more biased than a 
scientific one. I view both as simply lines of inquiry which
must meet the same tests for validity. 

Further the entire tone of the post seems to imply that
on the basis of requesting sources on this topic it is possible
to conclude that I have not set out a sound definitional basis
for the investigation, and that I do not adhere to a 
rigorous set of standards with regard to research, but simply
adjust my parameters to conform to my current whimsical
prejudices. 

I don't see how Chris Overton can deduce all this from my 
request, but I would suggest that it is a set of conclusions
derived from bias rather than evidence, and non-scientific
for that reason. 

I would also strongly  suggest that those conlcusions are
false.

-Jonathan Haskett-

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Overton)
Date: 11 Feb 93 23:51:14 GMT

Sorry -- I was not especially diplomatic in my post and I apologize.  I happen
to think that the future of civilization depends greatly on understanding what
a sustainable agricultural systems is and the impact of artificial systems
(agricultural systems) on natural ecosystems.  However, unless I am seriously
mistaken, I don't think a study done with the tools historians would bring to
bear would shed much light on what constitutes a sustainable agriculture.  On
the other hand, a scientist (like an ecologist) might be able to make some
sense of the historical record, especially if teamed with an archeologist.

A couple of points:

Arguments about entropy are not especially germain since the earth is an open
system at more or less dynamic equilibrium over geological time.  Climate
fluctuations would be more entertaining to consider.

Systems that failed will probably be the most informative, since it is much
harder to give an objective measure of systems that succeed (the paddy-rice
agriculture notwithstanding).

Furthermore, systems that apparently succeed could easily be on the cusp of
failure and a slight tweak in some parameter could knock them off.

An obvious prediction: Population density of humans and domestic animals is almost
certainly the single most important factor in determining sustainability.

A couple of questions:

Do you consider American intensive agriculture as practiced in the mid-west
sustainable?

Could you remind me what the average rate of topsoil loss is and the topsoil
depth in the American mid-west?  Should I be concerned about this?

Can you comment on salinization (or maybe its alkyloids, I forget) in the San
Fernando valley?  Is agriculture there sustainable?

Is there anything in the historical record that can contribute to our
understanding of the impact of the massive loss of ground water?

How would you characterize Somalia and Haiti, to name just two, in terms of the
collapse of their agricultural systems?  Here are situations where the
interplay among overpopulation, social conflict, agricultural depredation and
maybe climatic changes have contributed to ecosystem collapse.  Again, I think
an historian would be hard pressed to sort this out without considerable help
from a scientist.

----

I'm not trying to be discouraging --- as I said above, I think this is
important work.  I'm really just trying to understand the methodology and what
could be learned from the proposed approach.  (Sorry, too many grant reviews,
and too many paper reviews have colored outlook on life.)

Chris Overton

---

From: Thomas Bjorkman <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Feb 1993 17:42:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Chris
>Fernando valley?  Is agriculture there sustainable?

nit.pick on

In the San Fernando Valley, it is pavement.  The orange groves have given
way to suburbs.  In the San Joaquin, it is salinization and
_alkalinization_  (hi pH).

nit.pick off

I'd like to hear more from Jonathan Haskett.  My perspective on this much
like Chris Overton's ( I am a crop physiologist), so I also have trouble
understanding the angle that Jonathan is taking.  I'd like to understand
the historical-social science perspective to dealing with the issue of
sustainable agriculture better.