Subject: Re: generalizations
From: William D Hulet <whulet@uoguelph.ca>
Organization: University of Guelph
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:16:19 -0400
Message-ID: <MOD$970926.13246@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970922.22377@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970922.26760@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970926.24426@rec.gardens.ecosystems>



On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Bill Morgan wrote:

>
> Well, the group *is* named rec.gardens.ecosystems. That last word is
> implicitly a reference to science, specifically to ecology, a subdivision
> of biology (to define it a bit away from those who use the term as a
> near-synonym of environmentalism...) I think that the title of the group
> alone establishes that discussion of science is welcome here. Note that
>
This may be, but there is the question of what "ecosystems" means
to both ordinary and technical people. I've seen precious little
discussion hear that would come under the definition of the scientific
study of ecology. Nor have I seen much that seems to relate to
environmentalism. All I wanted to do was stop the drift towards "I've got
a problem with ______, what poison should I use to destroy it?" sort of
discussion. As I see it, that is antithetical to both understandings of
the word "ecosystem" in that most of the environmental biologists I know
grind their teeth at this sort of simplistic "nozzle-head" way of dealing
with problems.

this in no way precludes the discussion of other types of things (e.g., the
> things that interest you, such as values).
But, of course, this is exactly the point I'm trying to raise.
People who wrap themselves in the mantle of "science" usually refuse to
admit that they are operating under a set of values while saying that they
are following a "value-neutral" enterprise. Push any discussion about the
need for intrusive external controls in a garden and you'll eventually
come up against the breakwater of the people's values.

Do you want to grow something fast that requires a long time to
establish itself? Something exotic that doesn't adapt well to this
environment? Want consistent results? Not willing to take the time and
effort to really get to know what's going on in your garden? If so, then
you're stuck with "scientific" gardening practises (ie: blasting the soil
with something that allows you to "dumb" down your practices).

>
> In fact, there is no pressing need to make such an either/or distinction.
> There is plenty of room in this group for both types of discussion. The
Which is exactly what I was doing by making my comments. The
thing about some comments is that they fit into the paradigm of
"discussion" whereas others are seen as attempts to shut it down. I
suspect in this case the distinction comes about from how far the point of
view "pushes the envelope" of what people are used to hearing in such
debates.

> > The problems that confront our society ( and our gardens ) don't
> > wait until all the evidence is in.
>
> Which is no reason to ignore what evidence already exists. People didn't
> wait for a full understanding of aerodynamics before starting to fly.
> Goddard didn't know much about liquid-fueled rockets when he built the
This is obviously true, but recent history has given us lots of
examples of a society which has gone off half-cocked on a great number of
technical issues without attempting to completely understand the science
first. The problem with the scientific enterprise, as practised in our
present social and economic context, is that it has absolutely no sense of
humility. I have yet to see any evidence that the people engaged in the
scientific/agricultural complex have any understanding of Hippocrates'
dictum of "first do no wrong".

> > Nor is there any way that we can ever
> > know if we've figured out the problem completely. (Science progresses
> > through the development of theories that can be proven wrong---not by
> > discovering the "ultimate truth".)
>
> The point being what, exactly?
Humility, reverence for life, patience, sensitivity towards
nature---all of these things should be part of the process of growing
food. But all the technological innovations that I've seen that make the
effort to call themselves "scientific" have progressively downplayed these
ways of being a human being in favour of convenience, production, and,
consistency. Humility, reverence, etc., are cultural "rules of thumb"
that slow down the rate of change to the point where fewer damaging
mistakes are made on the basis of a partial understanding of a complex
system.

>
> Science is just a way of exploring the universe around us. And, like some
This is so much baloney. This may be the case for a small number
of academics involved in theoretical research at Universities, but for
the rest of society it is an authority figure that is used to justify a
great number of social and political decisions. There is no greater way
of shutting down a substantive debate than by raising the spector of
"science", yet how many times have we seen in retrospect that the research
used as the ultimate authority had been manipulated for political or
economic gain; or the people involved simply didn't understand all the
questions that they should have been asking?

> of the tools used in science (e.g., microscopes, telescopes), it has limits
> of resolution. That does not mean it is not a good tool, or that we should
> not make use of what we *can* see. We're a long way from an "ultimate"
> understanding of most of what we look into. But science is primarily
> concerned with a working knowledge of what we encounter. It is taken for
> granted that this working knowledge may be incomplete, and it is always the
Oh really? Maybe in a university setting by a professor with
tenure, but in an industrial setting I have yet to see many decision
makers say "We could make a shit load of money off this new process, but
I'm not quite sure that there aren't any unforseen consequences. We'd
better take a bit longer and do a lot more tests to make absolutely sure
that we know what we're doing. After all, humanity existed for thousands
of years without this thing so it won't matter if we last a few years more
without it." And don't take the easy out of saying that technology has
nothing to do with science. The people involved in industrial research
are graduates of university science programs and they derive all their
status in our society through association with the scientific enterprise.

> goal that gaps in that knowledge will eventually be filled in (though
> perhaps they will never be completely filled in.)
>
> > Which is exactly why our society needs to develop a little
humility. It needs to be willing to say "I could spray these dandelions,
but who knows, maybe there's some consequence I don't know about from
spraying with this chemical (nemotode, whatever). Better be safe than
sorry. Why do I want this sort of a lawn anyway?"

>
> Gardening is inherently un-natural. To live naturally, we should give up
> our computers, cars, houses, and all the other technologies we use. In a
Nonsense. It is impossible for humans to do anything that is
unnatural. We are a part of nature. The point is what sort of world we
want to live in, what sort of values we want it to reflect? The people
who call themselves "environmnetalists" are folks who want to live in a
world that respects the green living things of the world and the parts of
human society that allow us to live in harmony with them. People who
worship at the altar of "progress" place a greater value on the material,
technical products of an industrial society. This is a choice that has to
be made because these two points of view cannot exist at the same time on
a limited earth at this particular time.

> purist view, that might include fire, stone tools and clothing. We would be
> naked, unarmed, tool-less hunter-gatherers. No thank you, please.
(Since at this point the argument has degenerated into invalid
argument forms, such as the straw man, I too will descend to the realm of
rhetoric by assuming that you are in favour of mindless progress. This is
only a response to your insinuation that I want us to return to the caves.
"He who lives by the sword will die by it.")

This is a silly, straw man argument. I have yet to meet anyone
who really wants this sort of outcome. I am not asking you to give up
very much, only that you take the time to figure out how much is enough.
People's greed for convenience, consistency and so-on cannot be satiated,
it can only be controlled. And, I'm asking you to leave the folks who
don't want this ridiculous thing called "progress" alone and stop smashing
to bits the things that we hold dear.