Subject: Re: More on Ethics and Sustainability (fwd)

From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 10:03:03 -0700

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 16:19:49 CST
From: Frank Kutka <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: More on Ethics and Sustainability (fwd)

Jonathan Haskett's explanation of his view of sustainability clears up a
lot of my questions about his philosophy, but points to a basic problem in
the use of the word sustainable.  Like the words Christian or Democrat,
which have nice connotations to many but which really say very little,
sustainable has become that which everyone was already doing, and now
almost ceases to be meaningful.  We must always state what it is that
sustainable means to us when we bother to use the word.

Johnathan's assertions about how research shall proceed, though rational
sounding, are actually as loaded with philosophical presuppositions as are
his bioregionalist counterparts.  He sees sustainable farming as needed to
feed us indefinitely, because we really matter, and that entities that do
not actually impact the production of food are irrelevant, another hidden
value judgement.  I am sick of hearing about how rational it is to ignore
things whose immediate economic value is uknown, or that are of little
economic value.  Economics is itself a religion which says that getting
more money makes sense and that we should all do this to find happiness!
Another wolf in rationalist clothing.

If money, and numerical production, and even more people than now are what
matters to one, then of course the condition of stream fishes will not
matter to one's vision of sustainable agriculture.  However, I expand the
sustainable notion to include not only the elimination of resource
degradation, but also of environmental degradation.  Why?  Because I like
birds and bugs and fish and wildflowers, and they matter to me.  I could
never live in a so-called "rationalist" world of endless row crops and neat
little ditches in between, and why should I have to?  This is why I say
that farming in China is not sustainable just because it is old, because it
has devoured all other life forms in eastern Asia and skinned a lot of once
verdant land.

It is not "rational" to try to micromanage entire
continental ecosystems which run themselves pretty well (unless one wants
lots of work and to ultimately fail), nor is it "rational" to throw things
aside because an immediate monetary value could not be seen.  The beauty of
the land, and any rights that nonhumans have to exist and to share that
land, are a part of the joy of living in the countryside.  When farmers
become nothing more than irritated, control-mad businessmen and
speculators, living in an artificial landscape, then the soul and joy of
farming will be gone, and we would be left with only the problems and
drudgery: in this case, what has been "sustained"?

Peace,

Frank J. Kutka, part-time Junior Scientist and farmer
(218) 720-4262          [email-masked]

University of Minnesota
Natural Resources Research Institue
5013 Miller Trunk Highway
Duluth MN 55811
USA