Subject: Re: Wes Jackson and Aldo Leopold (fwd)

From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 20:36:20 -0800

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 30 Mar 94 17:06:00 EDT
From: JONATHAN HASKETT <[email-masked]>
To: sustag <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Wes Jackson and Aldo Leopold (fwd)

 One of the problems which has plagued many definitions
 of sustainable agriculture is the tendency to conflate
 moral and ethical judgments and ideas with questions
 of practice. Sustainability of agriculture depends on the
 physical/biological constraints on actual production, and
 the social/cultural constraints which define what kinds
 of production will be acceptable. What we judge to be
 ethically desirable in our society is a distinct set of
 concerns which do not necessarily affect sustainability.

 For example it is quite possible to have a sustainable
 agricultural system, which includes long-distance trade,
 reduces species diversity, degrades habitat, is in many
 aspects a monoculture, and is embedded in a hierarchical,
 centralized, bureaucrat, xenophobic, system which
 oppresses minorities and features huge disparities of
 wealth. Imperial China being a notable example.

 It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of
 sustainability with those of social morality or societal
 ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely
 coercive system could be based on the necessity of
 sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it
 works.

 It is also false and unfair to sustainability as a vehicle
 to further a moral agenda. This puts opponents in the
 position of advocating starvation, by creating a false
 connection between the technical/social issue of sustainable
 possibility and a set of moral tenants.

 This does not mean that we can not examine outlooks, ideas
 and ethical constructs for their impact on the environment
 and sustainability. For example it is easy to see how the
 notion that humans have dominion over the earth, which is
 an adversary to be conquered, could lead to the complete
 and devastating deforestation of an area. However, to then
 attempt to *derive* an ethical system from the natural system
 and its preservation, is fallacious. It would be quite possible
 to determine and maintain a low/sustainable forest yield,
 with a high level of diversity, using slave labor for the
 survey and public executions for those who over harvest.

 The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be
 subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and
 other concerns confined to the appropriate context.

Jonathan Haskett
[email-masked]