From IkerdJ@missouri.edu Wed Jul 7 22:07:30 1999 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:57:19 -0500 From: "Ikerd, John E." To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Social and Political Aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Sanet; I think this has been an excellent exchange of viewpoints on economics, politics, society, and sustainable agriculture. I doubt that I have much to add. But, at the risk of putting words to someone else's thoughts, it seems to me that most (not all) of the apparent conflicts in views arise from a felt need to set specific standards by which to measure success, progress, or sustainability. Some would measure success in terms of dollars and cents, and would try to put dollar and cent values on all ecological and social costs and benefits so they could be brought into the market place for allocation. Others would prefer to measure all costs and benefits in terms of their impacts on the lives of people and would prefer to convert dollars and cents, or even environmental impacts, into their value to society and would attempt to allocate resources through the political process. Still others, although not mentioned in the most recent exchange, see the natural ecosystem as the ultimate arbitrator of all values, including economic and social values, which can be addressed only through an expression of ethical or spiritual values. Each approach seem more logical than simply dealing with one dimension - be it economic, social, or ecological - and ignoring the others or assuming them away. But, I contend that no single scale of value - economic, social, or ecological - is adequate to measure true success, progress, or sustainability. We cannot ignore economic efficiency - the pursuit of short run self-interest - but neither can we allow self-interest to dominate the broader interest of society nor to degrade our basic ethical or spiritual values. We should pursue our collective interest as communities of people, but we can't allow our individual human rights or the natural environment to be degraded by our collectivism. Certainly we should live ethical, moral, spiritual lives; but we cannot possibly do so without concern for our legitimate individual self-interests and concern for others, both of the present and future. True quality of life is a product of all three - self-interest, shared-interest, and altruistic-interests. We are just kidding ourselves if we think we can live a life of quality without some reasonable balance among all three. The three dimensions of sustainability - economic, social, and ecological - reflect these same three dimensions of quality of life. All three are inherently interrelated -- are but parts of the same whole -- but are fundamentally different. Markets may be efficient allocators of private goods and services - those things which fall in the realm of self-interests. Political processes can be efficient allocators of public goods - those things which fall in the realm of shared-interests. An ethical or moral consensus is the only logical means I can see for allocating ecologically goods and services, because they reflect our responsibilities as stewards of the earth. They do not belong to us, neither individually nor collectively, nor do our dollars or our votes change our ethical and moral responsibilities. No one measure is adequate for all three. And, we cannot allow any one measure to be used as a single yardstick of success, progress, or sustainability. Perhaps pursuit of pure economic self-interest would dictate that still more farmers go out of business. But on the other hand, perhaps putting more farmers out of business is socially and ethically wrong. If so, we might strengthen our economy only to discover that we have severely weakening the social and moral fabric of our society. We seem to assume that allowing all of the other family business to fail has been good for society, so now we should allow family farms to fail as well. Perhaps allowing individual enterprises to be replaced by large-scale, corporate entities has strengthened the economy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has been good for our society -- or for humanity. A "strong economy" in socially and moral bankrupt society is but an illusion of strength. It is not sustainable. It's not necessarily immoral to allow someone to fail at farming, or at other type of endeavor. But, we should always be willing to ask if we have fulfilled our social and moral responsibilities to provide them with opportunities to succeed, or have we allowed their opportunities to be suppressed by the pursuit of greed. It seems to me that attempts to build strong collective societies have failed because they put too much emphasis on society, shared interests, and too little emphasis on individuality and spirituality. It seems that religious societies are inherently weak because they put too much emphasis on spirituality, altruistic interests, and give too little attention to social and individual values. It seems obvious to me that what we, in the so-called developed societies, are seriously at risk because we are putting far too much emphasis the individual, on short-run self-interests, and are giving too little concern to our common good and to our ethical and moral responsibilities. It is quite easy for me to believe that in most instances, we are putting too much emphasis on economics and too little on just about everything else. A sustainable society requires balance and harmony not dominance and suppression. In the days of Adam Smith, our "founding fathers" assumed that they didn't have to worry about balancing self-interest with social and ethical values. Smith and others assured them that the pursuit of self-interest was consistent with the greatest social good - and that quite likely was true in those days. Most economic enterprises were farms and other small, family operations, and ethics and morality were the dominant forces in an economically depraved society. They didn't see a need for an economic bill of rights to ensure equity of economic opportunity or to protect individuals and society from economic tyranny. They didn't see a need for an ecological bill of rights to protect the environment from human ignorance and greed. But we live in a different world today. Practically none of the assumptions required for Adam Smith's invisible hand to change "greed to good" hold true in today's economy. If the founding fathers were drafting a new constitution today, they undoubtedly would seek to ensure the protection of individuals, society, and the environment from the tyranny of economic greed. Smith and Jefferson both foresaw the day when further "enlightenment, new discoveries, new truths, and changes in circumstances" would warrant changes in the constitution. If we are to ensure sustainability, I believe that day has come. But, that's a whole-other paper. (Any who are interested may check it out at http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/billorri.htm ) John Ikerd To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From WILSONDO@phibred.com Wed Jul 7 22:08:04 1999 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:39:29 -0500 From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "'waldenfarm@sprintmail.com'" Subject: RE: Social and Political Aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Alex, > They must become schizoid to work all day for a company that > kills and destroys, has no ethics- is driven by profit motive > only and then be able to go home and try to feel good about > themselves. Or they decide that what is done in the business > world is different from what they do in their private lives I don't know anybody like that, and I don't know any companies like that. Being part of the system (including being a consumer) is a matter of shades of grey not black versus white. The choices we are confronted with are not so clear. The need is to look at issues with a fresh perspective, and somehow see past current cultural and political distortions. > And, IMO, it's just as schizophrenic to say that the social and > political aspects of sust. ag. should be discussed as a separate > issue, away from the biologic. Sure these are interrelated, but you have to know what is being discussed, define terms, and jointly understand the structure of the issue, to discuss things successfully. Use of loaded terms is a common powerplay, a way to control the dialogue. It is evidenced by use of poorly defined words of indeterminate scope like patriarchy, oppression, wise-use, sustainability, right-to-life, etc. The purpose of these things is to reinforce partisanship, not to illuminate. The way it works is to get people to give assent to the hidden meanings of the term, in a blanket sense, often by reference to lofty ideas like holism or righteousness, or based on someones authority. There is no defined set of hidden meanings. The content is determined ad-hoc by the people in charge. When an individual disagrees with some small component, all of a sudden they are anti-life, racist, or anti-wisdom. The word is like a trojan horse, with all sorts of ideological exotica packed inside. When someone takes issue with one hidden item, an emotional attack is launched, publicly fueled by the emotive, common-language meaning of the word, rather than the complex hidden meaning. > It is this kind of disassociated thinking that has gotten > us in the crisis we're in- social, political, economic, > ethical and spiritual. These must all be considered as a > whole, for they are inseparable and affect each other. Being human is what has gotten us into trouble. IMO, we have got to analyze these issues in a spirit of rational love, as humble scientists picking apart the system to understand it's workings. The trouble with an emotional approach is that it is too susceptible to the vagaries and manipulations of partisans. Charismatic leaders who urge us to swallow opaque concepts whole, without inspecting the parts are to be distrusted. > It's not us and them- you're reading too much into my words. > You may need to search yourself to see if you have a prejudice > somewhere that leads you to this when you read words that > disagree with your position. I know I struggle each day to > convert my prejudices. I feel like Sanet is loaded with misunderstanding and propaganda. I am probably mistaken to some extent, but that is how I feel. I struggle all the time to reconcile the things I read here with my technical and personal experiences. > I hope that you will some day realize that we can no longer > disassociate if we wish to survive and prosper- real prosperity, > not money and possessions. And please do not cry, "Foul" every > time someone talks of all aspects of an issue. We need to be > doing more of this. Disassociation in analysis of ideas is not so dangerous as the disassociation of people. I am going to tell you what I think is true, and I am going to cry foul when I feel you are being unfair. I agree, we need to keep talking about all aspects of these issues. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From jvworstell@futura.net Thu Jul 8 14:48:13 1999 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:17:29 -0500 From: jim worstell To: Hal Hamilton , "Wilson, Dale" , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component as wilsondo@phibred.com and others do. The original source for the three part definition seems to be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass. Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life". "[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism". The "social aspects" then become not one leg of sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological "profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional agricultural systems. Think about abandoning component thinking for a more holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all sustainable agricultural systems? Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag policy debates. Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub 3. htm. -----Original Message----- From: Hal Hamilton To: Wilson, Dale ; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was: Questions on organic livestock...) >Dale, > >Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and many others, has a social leg to balance environmental and economic legs. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From IkerdJ@missouri.edu Thu Jul 8 22:03:09 1999 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:33:55 -0500 From: "Ikerd, John E." To: 'jim worstell' , Hal Hamilton , "Wilson, Dale" , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Jim; I think you raise an excellent point concerning the natural tendency of people to want to dissect sustainability into three parts - ecological, economic, and social. I try to avoid the habit of referring to sustainability as having three "parts" - although the reductionism habit is hard to break. Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately. We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. But, once we understand the holistic concept of a box; knowing its height, length, and width become important descriptive dimensions. A fundamental problem with sustainability is that, unlike a box, we can't measure the three dimensions of sustainability using inches or feet or any single unit of measure. That's one reason why we simply cannot ignore the fact that sustainability has these different dimensions. It really doesn't matter to me whether we come to the sustainability issue from an economic, ecological, or social perspective, as long as we give due consideration to all three dimensions. I have no problem with your suggestion that we approach sustainability from a social/cultural perspective as long as we give adequate consideration to the economic and ecological dimensions. I agree that we have given far too much emphasis to the economics and too little emphasis to social organization in the past, but we don't want to make a similar mistake by ignoring the economic dimension in the future. We can't make a bigger box simply by making one that it taller, or wider, or longer - by concentrating on one dimension and ignoring the other two. You included "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility and holism" in your description of sustainable social organization. I just prefer to deal with the dimensions more explicitly so that none gets left out. John Ikerd -----Original Message----- From: jim worstell [mailto:jvworstell@futura.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:17 PM To: Hal Hamilton; Wilson, Dale; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Social and political aspects By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component as wilsondo@phibred.com and others do. The original source for the three part definition seems to be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass. Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life". "[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism". The "social aspects" then become not one leg of sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological "profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional agricultural systems. Think about abandoning component thinking for a more holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all sustainable agricultural systems? Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag policy debates. Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub 3.htm -----Original Message----- From: Hal Hamilton > To: Wilson, Dale >; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was: Questions on organic livestock...) >Dale, > >Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and many others, has a social leg to balance environmental and economic legs. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca Thu Jul 8 22:03:57 1999 Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 16:48:57 -0400 From: Bob MacGregor To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Social and political aspects The practical limitations to consideration of all three dimensions are considerable. What the resource economists are trying to do is construct a common numeraire. If your box's width is measured in inches, the height in barleygrains and the depth in ogglequats, it is difficult to describe its reality. If we cannot find a common numeraire for the economic, social and environmental dimensions, then we have no way to figure out the optimal balance among them --they cannot be considered holistically, as is most desirable. Some folks would, or course, weight economic returns or social well-being above environmental concerns; others might place the sacredness of species above ANY other concern. In aggregate, though, societies (indeed, the entire world society) must eventually come to terms with the inevitable tradeoffs among the three dimensions (sort of like saying the volume of the box is fixed, so expanding one dimension means reducing another to compensate --> too crude an analogy, since technology can introduce some flexibility in the world's economy/society/environment "box"; still, the world is finite in the end). If we cannot find an acceptable way of rating all factors against each other, we will always be locked into looking at them separately. The political process becomes the ultimate arbiter which will implicitly decide on the relative value of these factors (as reflected in subsidies, tax laws, incentives, endangered species or anti-pollution regulation, etc.). BOB To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From IkerdJ@missouri.edu Fri Jul 9 23:58:21 1999 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:26:55 -0500 From: "Ikerd, John E." To: 'Bob MacGregor' , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Bob; The practical difficulties of dealing with three different measures of the same whole are considerable, and thus, the challenges before us are not trivial. However, changing a difficult question to one that is more easily answered does not answer the difficult question. The challenge is similar to that of dealing with humans as physical, mental, and spiritual beings - three dimensions of the same whole being. We are just beginning to realize that when we deal with only parts of people we create all sorts of unanticipated problems for whole people. Perhaps as we learn to deal with people as whole beings we will learn to deal with other wholes as well. We may learn also that relationships among the economic, social and ecological dimensions are not competitive, implying inevitable tradeoffs, but instead are complimentary, implying that all must grow in harmony together. As we learn, I suspect some sociopolitical process will become the ultimate arbiter among the economic, social, and ecological -- as you suggest. After all, the question of sustainability ultimately is about the nature of human intervention into natural ecosystems. Without people the question of sustainability becomes mute. Maybe we just need to accept the fact that people must give thoughtful consideration to their actions, individually and collectively, rather than blindly hope that something else or someone else, somehow, will turn their acts of individual greed in to societal good. John Ikerd -----Original Message----- From: Bob MacGregor [mailto:rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 3:49 PM To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Social and political aspects The practical limitations to consideration of all three dimensions are considerable. What the resource economists are trying to do is construct a common numeraire. If your box's width is measured in inches, the height in barleygrains and the depth in ogglequats, it is difficult to describe its reality. If we cannot find a common numeraire for the economic, social and environmental dimensions, then we have no way to figure out the optimal balance among them --they cannot be considered holistically, as is most desirable. Some folks would, or course, weight economic returns or social well-being above environmental concerns; others might place the sacredness of species above ANY other concern. In aggregate, though, societies (indeed, the entire world society) must eventually come to terms with the inevitable tradeoffs among the three dimensions (sort of like saying the volume of the box is fixed, so expanding one dimension means reducing another to compensate --> too crude an analogy, since technology can introduce some flexibility in the world's economy/society/environment "box"; still, the world is finite in the end). If we cannot find an acceptable way of rating all factors against each other, we will always be locked into looking at them separately. The political process becomes the ultimate arbiter which will implicitly decide on the relative value of these factors (as reflected in subsidies, tax laws, incentives, endangered species or anti-pollution regulation, etc.). BOB To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From jvworstell@futura.net Fri Jul 9 23:59:02 1999 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:58:44 -0500 From: Jim Worstell To: "Ikerd, John E." , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] John, I like your three dimensional box analogy much better than the three-legged stool. I guess I'm not so much interested in measuring the outside of the box as I am understanding how the box creates itself. Like many phenomena, the important dimensions of sustainability are as yet undefined. These dimensions could be said to be folded up inside the box--as in string theory, we know time and three dimensions, but several more are inaccessible to our observation. The three dimensions are the results. What are the causes of sustainability? Let's hypothesize that the vital cultures discussed by Douglass and Bawden, are at once the foundation and the generator of sustainability. Given that notion, the task is to define the values, assumptions and habits of such "learning communities" to determine which are causes of sustainability and which are epiphenomena or even detract from sustainability. Most people growing up on small farms close to no large cities, as you and I did, experience something less than a "vital rural culture." Something like the old German saying, "Cities make free" lead many to find vital community away from the often stultifying rural areas. So, "vital rural cultures" to many is a internal contradiction. Do you think this line of thought is worth pursuing? If you do, how would you do it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Ikerd, John E. To: 'jim worstell' ; Hal Hamilton ; Wilson, Dale ; Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 2:33 PM Subject: RE: Social and political aspects > Jim; > > I think you raise an excellent point concerning the natural tendency of > people to want to dissect sustainability into three parts - ecological, > economic, and social. I try to avoid the habit of referring to > sustainability as having three "parts" - although the reductionism habit is > hard to break. Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that > has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has > three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or > two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely > thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box > by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately. > We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. But, once we > understand the holistic concept of a box; knowing its height, length, and > width become important descriptive dimensions. A fundamental problem with > sustainability is that, unlike a box, we can't measure the three dimensions > of sustainability using inches or feet or any single unit of measure. > That's one reason why we simply cannot ignore the fact that sustainability > has these different dimensions. > > It really doesn't matter to me whether we come to the sustainability issue > from an economic, ecological, or social perspective, as long as we give due > consideration to all three dimensions. I have no problem with your > suggestion that we approach sustainability from a social/cultural > perspective as long as we give adequate consideration to the economic and > ecological dimensions. I agree that we have given far too much emphasis to > the economics and too little emphasis to social organization in the past, > but we don't want to make a similar mistake by ignoring the economic > dimension in the future. We can't make a bigger box simply by making one > that it taller, or wider, or longer - by concentrating on one dimension and > ignoring the other two. You included "the values of stewardship, > self-reliance, humility and holism" in your description of sustainable > social organization. I just prefer to deal with the dimensions more > explicitly so that none gets left out. > > John Ikerd > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jim worstell [mailto:jvworstell@futura.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:17 PM > To: Hal Hamilton; Wilson, Dale; > sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Social and political aspects > > By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of > sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component > as wilsondo@phibred.com and others do. > The original source for the three part definition seems to > be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass. > Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural > sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two > schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural > systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life". > "[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in > promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of > stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism". > The "social aspects" then become not one leg of > sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological > "profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach > underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional > agricultural systems. > Think about abandoning component thinking for a more > holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all > sustainable agricultural systems? > Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the > U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social > organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, > humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've > allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag > policy debates. > Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World > Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be > found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub > 3.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Hamilton > > To: Wilson, Dale >; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > > > > Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM > Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was: > Questions on organic > livestock...) > > > >Dale, > > > >Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and > many others, has a > social leg to balance environmental and economic legs. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "subscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From hhamilton@centerss.org Fri Jul 9 23:59:50 1999 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:44:40 -0400 From: Hal Hamilton To: Jim Worstell , "Ikerd, John E." , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Jim and John, etc., This seems to be an extraordinarily fruitful line of thought. My suggestion would be to ground it in actual experience and case studies. I think of a friend Arie van den Brand, who runs an network of "nature coops" in the Netherlands. These are groups of farmers who contract, as groups, with local authorities for payment to protect specifically defined biodiversity. It all started with concern over bird nesting, and the realization by enviro groups that farm fields were actually better for particular species than "wild" nature. The farmers have become expert at noticing species interactions and entrepreneurial in their development of contractual relationships. We might describe this as component reductionism, but it seems to me to be an example of what Jim calls a learning community in which relationships and continual learning lead to a more complex "box." The conversation also makes me recall long "lessons" from John Berry Sr., who described the tobacco program: "We created the program for people. The crop was incidental. The goal was to keep these families on these hills (as he waved his arm across the window of his little country law office), to support a local economy based on good grass farming, to make sure they could pay their notes and send their children to school." [Wes Jackson once observed that the best thing about the tobacco program in KY is that it subsidizes a grass based economy.] I also recall a group of Americans I was leading in France last year. We were visiting very successful coops and entrepreneurs, and a couple of our US participants kept asking, "What's your 10 year plan for the business? What are your long term goals?" The answer kept coming back that our hosts were satisfied with where they were, of course aiming to make improvements, sometimes with modest growth goals, but rarely with ambitious growth goals. The US participants at first thought the French farmers were lying--such is the power of our assumptions. After several more interviews we because clear that there was a significant cultural difference. These were people who had created successful products, were making money, but who had few aspirations to wealth. Protecting native meadows, keeping stocking densities low, developing relationships with consumers, supporting new allied businesses in their towns, celebrating traditional culture along with innovative ideas--all these ! aspects are intertwined. Supports your assertions, Jim, I think. Hal Hal Hamilton Center for Sustainable Systems 433 Chestnut St., Berea KY 40403 USA Phone: (606) 986-5336; Fax: (606) 986-1299 hhamilton@centerss.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Worstell Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 9:59 AM To: Ikerd, John E.; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Social and political aspects John, I like your three dimensional box analogy much better than the three-legged stool. I guess I'm not so much interested in measuring the outside of the box as I am understanding how the box creates itself. Like many phenomena, the important dimensions of sustainability are as yet undefined. These dimensions could be said to be folded up inside the box--as in string theory, we know time and three dimensions, but several more are inaccessible to our observation. The three dimensions are the results. What are the causes of sustainability? Let's hypothesize that the vital cultures discussed by Douglass and Bawden, are at once the foundation and the generator of sustainability. Given that notion, the task is to define the values, assumptions and habits of such "learning communities" to determine which are causes of sustainability and which are epiphenomena or even detract from sustainability. Most people growing up on small farms close to no large cities, as you and I did, experience something less than a "vital rural culture." Something like the old German saying, "Cities make free" lead many to find vital community away from the often stultifying rural areas. So, "vital rural cultures" to many is a internal contradiction. Do you think this line of thought is worth pursuing? If you do, how would you do it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Ikerd, John E. To: 'jim worstell' ; Hal Hamilton ; Wilson, Dale ; Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 2:33 PM Subject: RE: Social and political aspects > Jim; > > I think you raise an excellent point concerning the natural tendency of > people to want to dissect sustainability into three parts - ecological, > economic, and social. I try to avoid the habit of referring to > sustainability as having three "parts" - although the reductionism habit is > hard to break. Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that > has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has > three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or > two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely > thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box > by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately. > We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. But, once we > understand the holistic concept of a box; knowing its height, length, and > width become important descriptive dimensions. A fundamental problem with > sustainability is that, unlike a box, we can't measure the three dimensions > of sustainability using inches or feet or any single unit of measure. > That's one reason why we simply cannot ignore the fact that sustainability > has these different dimensions. > > It really doesn't matter to me whether we come to the sustainability issue > from an economic, ecological, or social perspective, as long as we give due > consideration to all three dimensions. I have no problem with your > suggestion that we approach sustainability from a social/cultural > perspective as long as we give adequate consideration to the economic and > ecological dimensions. I agree that we have given far too much emphasis to > the economics and too little emphasis to social organization in the past, > but we don't want to make a similar mistake by ignoring the economic > dimension in the future. We can't make a bigger box simply by making one > that it taller, or wider, or longer - by concentrating on one dimension and > ignoring the other two. You included "the values of stewardship, > self-reliance, humility and holism" in your description of sustainable > social organization. I just prefer to deal with the dimensions more > explicitly so that none gets left out. > > John Ikerd > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jim worstell [mailto:jvworstell@futura.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:17 PM > To: Hal Hamilton; Wilson, Dale; > sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Social and political aspects > > By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of > sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component > as wilsondo@phibred.com and others do. > The original source for the three part definition seems to > be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass. > Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural > sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two > schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural > systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life". > "[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in > promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of > stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism". > The "social aspects" then become not one leg of > sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological > "profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach > underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional > agricultural systems. > Think about abandoning component thinking for a more > holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all > sustainable agricultural systems? > Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the > U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social > organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, > humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've > allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag > policy debates. > Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World > Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be > found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub > 3.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Hamilton > > To: Wilson, Dale >; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > > > > Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM > Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was: > Questions on organic > livestock...) > > > >Dale, > > > >Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and > many others, has a > social leg to balance environmental and economic legs. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "subscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From IkerdJ@missouri.edu Sat Jul 10 00:00:23 1999 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:20:38 -0500 From: "Ikerd, John E." To: 'Hal Hamilton' , Jim Worstell , "Ikerd, John E." , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Jim and Hal; I am certainly not smart enough to answer the questions that have been raised, and am not sure I even know where to start looking for the answers. But, your suggestions of starting by looking at actual cases -- farms, communities, cities, societies, etc. - and trying to understand what makes some at least appear to be more sustainable than others would seem to be a good place to start. The thing of which I am most sure is that we have to begin observing, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, and drawing conclusions using a fundamentally different paradigm of science - holism rather than reductionism, as suggested in Bawden's sabbatical paper. In a sense, we have to start over again. We all have something of value to contribute to this process -- we are all dimensions of the whole we are trying to understand -- but we need to admit our mutual ignorance as we search together for understanding. One parting thought on this subject, we need to think from OUTSIDE the box. >From the inside, a box looks too much like a prison cell. Have a good weekend! John Ikerd -----Original Message----- From: Hal Hamilton [mailto:hhamilton@centerss.org] Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 9:45 AM To: Jim Worstell; Ikerd, John E.; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects Jim and John, etc., This seems to be an extraordinarily fruitful line of thought. My suggestion would be to ground it in actual experience and case studies. I think of a friend Arie van den Brand, who runs an network of "nature coops" in the Netherlands. These are groups of farmers who contract, as groups, with local authorities for payment to protect specifically defined biodiversity. It all started with concern over bird nesting, and the realization by enviro groups that farm fields were actually better for particular species than "wild" nature. The farmers have become expert at noticing species interactions and entrepreneurial in their development of contractual relationships. We might describe this as component reductionism, but it seems to me to be an example of what Jim calls a learning community in which relationships and continual learning lead to a more complex "box." The conversation also makes me recall long "lessons" from John Berry Sr., who described the tobacco program: "We created the program for people. The crop was incidental. The goal was to keep these families on these hills (as he waved his arm across the window of his little country law office), to support a local economy based on good grass farming, to make sure they could pay their notes and send their children to school." [Wes Jackson once observed that the best thing about the tobacco program in KY is that it subsidizes a grass based economy.] I also recall a group of Americans I was leading in France last year. We were visiting very successful coops and entrepreneurs, and a couple of our US participants kept asking, "What's your 10 year plan for the business? What are your long term goals?" The answer kept coming back that our hosts were satisfied with where they were, of course aiming to make improvements, sometimes with modest growth goals, but rarely with ambitious growth goals. The US participants at first thought the French farmers were lying--such is the power of our assumptions. After several more interviews we because clear that there was a significant cultural difference. These were people who had created successful products, were making money, but who had few aspirations to wealth. Protecting native meadows, keeping stocking densities low, developing relationships with consumers, supporting new allied businesses in their towns, celebrating traditional culture along with innovative ideas--all these aspects are intertwined. Supports your assertions, Jim, I think. Hal Hal Hamilton Center for Sustainable Systems 433 Chestnut St., Berea KY 40403 USA Phone: (606) 986-5336; Fax: (606) 986-1299 hhamilton@centerss.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Worstell Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 9:59 AM To: Ikerd, John E.; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Social and political aspects John, I like your three dimensional box analogy much better than the three-legged stool. I guess I'm not so much interested in measuring the outside of the box as I am understanding how the box creates itself. Like many phenomena, the important dimensions of sustainability are as yet undefined. These dimensions could be said to be folded up inside the box--as in string theory, we know time and three dimensions, but several more are inaccessible to our observation. The three dimensions are the results. What are the causes of sustainability? Let's hypothesize that the vital cultures discussed by Douglass and Bawden, are at once the foundation and the generator of sustainability. Given that notion, the task is to define the values, assumptions and habits of such "learning communities" to determine which are causes of sustainability and which are epiphenomena or even detract from sustainability. Most people growing up on small farms close to no large cities, as you and I did, experience something less than a "vital rural culture." Something like the old German saying, "Cities make free" lead many to find vital community away from the often stultifying rural areas. So, "vital rural cultures" to many is a internal contradiction. Do you think this line of thought is worth pursuing? If you do, how would you do it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Ikerd, John E. To: 'jim worstell' ; Hal Hamilton ; Wilson, Dale ; Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 2:33 PM Subject: RE: Social and political aspects > Jim; > > I think you raise an excellent point concerning the natural tendency of > people to want to dissect sustainability into three parts - ecological, > economic, and social. I try to avoid the habit of referring to > sustainability as having three "parts" - although the reductionism habit is > hard to break. Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that > has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has > three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or > two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely > thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box > by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately. > We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. But, once we > understand the holistic concept of a box; knowing its height, length, and > width become important descriptive dimensions. A fundamental problem with > sustainability is that, unlike a box, we can't measure the three dimensions > of sustainability using inches or feet or any single unit of measure. > That's one reason why we simply cannot ignore the fact that sustainability > has these different dimensions. > > It really doesn't matter to me whether we come to the sustainability issue > from an economic, ecological, or social perspective, as long as we give due > consideration to all three dimensions. I have no problem with your > suggestion that we approach sustainability from a social/cultural > perspective as long as we give adequate consideration to the economic and > ecological dimensions. I agree that we have given far too much emphasis to > the economics and too little emphasis to social organization in the past, > but we don't want to make a similar mistake by ignoring the economic > dimension in the future. We can't make a bigger box simply by making one > that it taller, or wider, or longer - by concentrating on one dimension and > ignoring the other two. You included "the values of stewardship, > self-reliance, humility and holism" in your description of sustainable > social organization. I just prefer to deal with the dimensions more > explicitly so that none gets left out. > > John Ikerd > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jim worstell [mailto:jvworstell@futura.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:17 PM > To: Hal Hamilton; Wilson, Dale; > sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Social and political aspects > > By accepting a reductionistic three component definition of > sustainability we invite people to delete or redefine the "social" component > as wilsondo@phibred.com and others do. > The original source for the three part definition seems to > be misleading simplification of a 1984 analysis by Gordon Douglass. > Douglass described three schools of thought regarding agricultural > sustainability. The "community school" , in contrast to the other two > schools, "pays most attention to the effects of different agricultural > systems on the vitality, social organization, and culture of rural life". > "[I]t's members are also ecologically minded, but their prime interest is in > promoting vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of > stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism". > The "social aspects" then become not one leg of > sustainability, but the entire foundation. Any economic or ecological > "profit or loss" results from these social structures. Such an approach > underscores the qualitative difference of sustainable and conventional > agricultural systems. > Think about abandoning component thinking for a more > holistic approach. Aren't "vital, coherent rural cultures" common to all > sustainable agricultural systems? > Stressing profit and ecology instead, as we have here in the > U.S., have led us into our present quagmire of agricultural crisis. Social > organization which encourages "the values of stewardship, self-reliance, > humility and holism," appears to provide the long-term solution. Yet we've > allowed such concepts to be marginalized to the point of extinction in ag > policy debates. > Douglass' book, Agricultural Sustainability in the New World > Order, in out of print, but a webpage discussing some of his ideas can be > found at www.canr.msu.edu/bailey/background/pub > 3.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Hamilton > > To: Wilson, Dale >; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu > > > > Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:34 AM > Subject: RE: Social and political aspects (was: > Questions on organic > livestock...) > > > >Dale, > > > >Sustainable agriculture, as defined by Congress and > many others, has a > social leg to balance environmental and economic legs. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu > with the command "subscribe > sanet-mg-digest". > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From jvworstell@futura.net Sat Jul 10 00:00:49 1999 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:22:50 -0500 From: jim worstell To: Bob MacGregor , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Funny how our assumptions control us. We assume sustainability has three dimensions, realize they can't be measured in comparable units, and despair. Yet, if we assume sustainability results from "vital, coherent, rural cultures that encourage the values of stewardship, self-reliance, humility, and holism", then we needn't worry about quantitatively measuring the economic, social and ecological symptoms. We can confidently work to encourage such "vital rural cultures." Or, much more commonly, we assume sustainability is a crock because we assume that we'll be happy only when we get all that good stuff we see on teevee. We are usually so busy completing the destinies given us by our assumptions that we don't even recognize the assumptions (usually fears) controlling us. -----Original Message----- From: Bob MacGregor To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Thursday, July 08, 1999 3:15 PM Subject: Re: RE: Social and political aspects >The practical limitations to consideration of all three dimensions are considerable. What the resource economists are trying to do is construct a common numeraire. If your box's width is measured in inches, the height in barleygrains and the depth in ogglequats, it is difficult to describe its reality. >If we cannot find a common numeraire for the economic, social and environmental dimensions, then we have no way to figure out the optimal balance among them --they cannot be considered holistically, as is most desirable. Some folks would, or course, weight economic returns or social well-being above environmental concerns; others might place the sacredness of species above ANY other concern. In aggregate, though, societies (indeed, the entire world society) must eventually come to terms with the inevitable tradeoffs among the three dimensions (sort of like saying the volume of the box is fixed, so expanding one dimension means reducing another to compensate --> too crude an analogy, since technology can introduce some flexibility in the world's economy/society/environment "box"; still, the world is finite in the end). >If we cannot find an acceptable way of rating all factors against each other, we will always be locked into looking at them separately. The political process becomes the ultimate arbiter which will implicitly decide on the relative value of these factors (as reflected in subsidies, tax laws, incentives, endangered species or anti-pollution regulation, etc.). > >BOB > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From grargall@alphalink.com.au Sat Jul 10 23:52:05 1999 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 09:03:26 +1000 From: Argall Family To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Jim Worstell wrote, reflecting on this extensive thread: "Funny how our assumptions control us. We assume sustainability has three dimensions, realize they can't be measured in comparable units, and despair. Marston Bates wrote in 1950, discussing the way folks can argue about the 'boundaries' of predation, symbiosis and parasitism: "Our problem really is with the human mind, which needs to deal with discrete categories, even when these have to be imposed on an essentially continuous series. The trouble comes when we mistake the nature of our categories... Science sometimes achieves rigid definition that can be handled with precise mathematical logic; but often also it must deal with vague and essentially undefinable concepts, where logic becomes a handicap. I think an important part of the scientific method is the ability to work with indefinite and provisional concepts, to accept approximations which can be used until something better is available. To be scientific in this sense, is to be unsure, to be indefinite where knowledge or the nature of the material does not warrant definiteness..." Marston Bates, The Nature of Natural History, Princeton Science Library Edition, 1990, p 140. I think this has application both to how we look at the business of farming and how we undertake the business of discussing. Some of this discussion (which I have tried to read in one dose, having been away from the computer) seems to reflect agendas well away from the core business of sustainable farming, which we ought to hope could be carried out by as many farming persons as possible, either corporate or private, all of whom have dimensions of good and evil, competition and cooperation; and perhaps a third dimension here and there.. Some of the rules and definitions tossed around seem to drift off from a central concern to see that exploitation of the earth, on any scale, by any persons, should result in that part of the earth being no less rich in its ecology, no less exploitable, over time. That principle promptly demands compromise - in at least three dimensions ;-) (e.g. we crave houses with very limited biodiversity inside; we wish to reserve some places in a town or country plan for some 'non-productive' use; we wish to vary time scales for measuring return to comparable ecological value in different places; and, most difficult, we wish to expand some individual (corporate or private) freedoms, and take away others). Maybe it is not in the purity of the idea of sustainability but in the nature of such compromise that the real issues are to be pursued - that is, the issues for definition are in the nature of the principles of compromise. In part that involves defining what is not to be compromised - but there is a need to be honest with ourselves about the cultural and attitudinal baggage we bring to that process. Dennis To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From WILSONDO@phibred.com Sun Jul 11 11:52:35 1999 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 00:38:05 -0500 From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: 'Argall Family' Subject: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Dennis, > "Our problem really is with the human mind, which needs to deal > with discrete categories, even when these have to be imposed on > an essentially continuous series. The trouble comes when we > mistake the nature of our categories. That is right on target. People should not take the three-dimensional model of sustainability too seriously. It is just a taxonomy in which to categorize values. It is the values and principles that are important, not the nomenclature. > Some of this discussion (snip) seems to reflect > agendas well away from the core business of sustainable > farming... IMO, discrete values and agendae need to be unpacked and discussed. Some people resist unpacking sustainability because certain values they hold dear might not garner support on their own. > Some of the rules and definitions tossed around seem to drift > off from a central concern to see that exploitation of the > earth.. Yes. This must be the central concern. If this waits until all human-human problems are fixed, wild nature will be a thing of the past. > Maybe it is not in the purity of the idea of sustainability but > in the nature of such compromise that the real issues are to be > pursued - that is, the issues for definition are in the nature > of the principles of compromise. In part that involves defining > what is not to be compromised.. Setting aside visions of revolutionary zeal and purity, it involves activity and compromise in the political and policy-making arena. IMO the central goal should be the insertion of externalities into the market. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From grargall@alphalink.com.au Sun Jul 11 11:53:12 1999 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:34:47 +1000 From: Argall Family To: "Wilson, Dale" , sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Dale I was with you until you said: "IMO the central goal should be the insertion of externalities into the market." Can you insert 'em for us? Dennis To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Sun Jul 11 11:53:50 1999 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 07:38:44 -0400 From: Alex McGregor To: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Social and political aspects Well, this has sure opened a can of worms. Perhaps clarifying my terms better would help those who like to pick apart statements based on their own interpretation of words, rather than seeing the big picture. (Symptomatic of Reductionist thinking.) Corporate farming- perhaps the words "industrial food production" works better for those who insist that "corporate" has to mean anything incorporated. I define this as an attempt to impose industrial production line thinking on biological systems. Sustainable- This is a concept, not a technique. To be sustainable, a system has to be flexible and have the ability to try new things while retaining some sense of history, tradition... Myself, I prefer the term "Complimentary Agriculture"- observing the processes in nature and attempting to work with them, not trying to force our will on them. A review of the criticism in this thread centers around "economics." These all seem to be based on the premise that economics has Been given the status of a science or religion. Economics is all theory and subject to change under changing circumstances. (I refer you to "trickle down" and all other theories that have fallen by the wayside.) Applying economics as the directing force in agriculture has been one of our big mistakes. We have wrongly thought that, since manufacturing of goods has been so successful at capturing dollars, we should apply the same management to growing food. And there was the statement that farmers want a free ride, or something of that nature. Far from it. If I were interested in making the most money, that is cornering the niche market I have developed locally, I would be arguing for the elimination of small, locally marketing farms. This would get rid of the "competition" and I would be the only local source of high nutrient foods that are untainted with pesticides. I could get rich! But, I really wouldn't be rich. I would be only amassing money and living in a socially, culturally and economically impoverished area- rich in the bank, poor in spirit. said, "We need to create the beauty and the quality first. The quantity will follow." I would like to paraphrase that to, "We need to create high quality of life and high quality food first. The money (economics) will follow." What I mean by this is that if we chase dollars, we ignore all else. If we pursue quality based on ethics/morals/spirituality, then dollars become only a tool for exchange, not the end all and "god" it has become today. I guess this means that "the ends are determined by the means," not, "the end justifies the means." Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Sun Jul 11 11:54:27 1999 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:31:23 -0400 From: Alex McGregor To: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Addendum In my previous post, I left off the name of the person I was quoting. It should read: Allen Chadwick said, "We need to create..." Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From earthspn@crocker.com Sun Jul 11 11:57:54 1999 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:57:41 -0400 From: Mark To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Social and political aspects >Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:33:55 -0500 >From: "Ikerd, John E." >Instead, I think of sustainability as a single entity that >has three distinct "dimensions" -- in the same sense that a wooden box has >three dimensions; height, length, and width. A box that lacks any one or >two of these dimensions is not a box at all, but instead is an infinitely >thin board or stick. We can't understand the fundamental nature of a box >by taking it apart and looking at its height, length, or width separately. >We have to understand the concept of a box as a whole. Does this mean we have to think INSIDE the box? Happy weekend! Mark ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization c/o Hampshire College 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail