Subject: Re: generalizations
From: wtmorgan@pilot.msu.edu (Bill Morgan)
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:49:53 -0400
Message-ID: <MOD$970926.24426@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970922.22377@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970922.26760@rec.gardens.ecosystems>


In article <MOD$970922.26760@rec.gardens.ecosystems>, William D Hulet
wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Bill Robinson wrote:
>
> > Andrew Lopez made some generalizations about synthetic materials vs.
> > organic materials. Like most generalizations, I think that they are
>
> I wonder about the structure of this debate. Is gardening a
> cultural or a scientific enterprise? If it is cultural, then shouldn't we
> be discussing values, rules of thumb, and, ways of envisioning the world?
> If it is a science, then we should be arguing about details and evidence.

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 in no way precludes the discussion of other types of things (e.g., the
things that interest you, such as values).

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
volume of postings is very low here: we don't have to worry about the group
being swamped because we engage in a wider area of debate. In fact, within
the relative quiet of this group, we might all benefit from considering
these things in juxtaposition. (That's a rare advantage on the UseNet these
days: it is common for groups to be so full of shouting and name-calling
that actually discussing things from varied viewpoints is impossible in
most cases.)

>
> 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
first one. Medical science is still far from complete, but that doesn't
mean we shouldn't use what medical knowledge we do have in order to save
lives. If you wait for some arbitrary level of "complete" knowledge, you
will wait forever. (It's like buying a computer: the best day to buy one is
always tomorrow...)

> 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?

Science is just a way of exploring the universe around us. And, like some
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
goal that gaps in that knowledge will eventually be filled in (though
perhaps they will never be completely filled in.)

>
> What I'm interested in is learning new viewpoints and finding new
> questions to ask when I look at a problems.
And indeed, science is always in the business of looking at things through
new (sometimes revolutionary) viewpoints, and discovering new questions.

>I think that it is pointless
> to discuss the relative toxicity of a specific poison when it seems
> obvious to me that the need to use poison on our garden is already a
> statement to alienation from nature.
Gardens themselves may be construed as a statement of our alienation from
nature. Agriculture is a technology which we use to modify the environment
around us. The agricultural revolution (circa 10,000 years ago) was one of
the great turning points in human history: It meant that we would be
numerous and it provided a necessary part of the structure for the
development of the first civilizations. In promoting the rise of
civilization, it also fostered the development of other technologies. All
that our civilization is today (for both good and ill) exists because of
this technology.

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
purist view, that might include fire, stone tools and clothing. We would be
naked, unarmed, tool-less hunter-gatherers. No thank you, please.

Even just going back to say, pre-industrial revolution ways is not a viable
option. We can't all go live in primitive agrarian societies. The planet
can't support very many of us living that kind of life.

The fact is, we can't go back to an all-natural existence.

>I also think that it should be
> obvious to anyone with insight that this alienation from nature is one of
> the key problems that confronts our present society.
True in a way, but again, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Our
very society is unnatural, and can't be made otherwise.

We are by nature unnatural.

The real problem is the lack of understanding (and regard) for the wider
ecosystem which sustains us. Some of this problem is political and
economic. Some is simply because information doesn't always get out. Plenty
of it is due to the fact that most of us live in cities nowdays, and seldom
see the world beyond. (And we can't simply all move out to the country:
we'd destroy the environment quickly and completely if we tried.)

Dealing with these realities will not be an easy task for society, but
turning your back on scientific study of ecosystems will not help things,
either. This society needs a working knowledge of ecosystems, and
particularly of the impact that we have on them. Agriculture is perhaps our
most widespread activity, so the impact of agricultural practices on the
environment is very important. (Aside from the fact it feeds us...)

>
> If I wanted to discuss the relative toxicity of one poison versus
> another I think that I'd go to another conference. Here I want to learn
> how people have found out to sidestep the whole problem.
These are all considerations within the realm of agricultural sciences. Can
a crop be raised in such a way as to prevent attack by insects or diseases?
What will do that? A resistant variety? Cultural practices such as crop
rotation? Attention to micronutrients? If prevention does not work, what
controls can be brought to bear? Predators, parasites and pathogens of the
pest? If pesticides are necessary, which are safest to us and to our
environment? How may they be best used?

"Sidestepping the whole problem" is the subject of a lot of research, and
will be even more so in the future.

>I am not a
> scientist and I don't think that science will have very much to do with
> any solutions to either problems in my garden or problems in my world.
It already has, and will continue to do so.

Even things like "organic" gardening techniques can be investigated on a
scientific basis. All you have to do is find someone willing to take the
time and make the effort. Some of the people on this group (and the other
garden groups) actually do small-scale scientific studies in their own
gardens. It's not that hard to do and to do right. It just takes a bit of
thought and a bit of work. (Stay tuned: you're bound to read the results of
some of these tests in the coming months.)

A final thought on the subject:

If we abandon the discussion of science in this newsgroup, do we then
revert to a free-for-all wherein the unsubstantiated opinions of the "spray
first ask questions later" crowd is opposed only by the unverified opinions
of those who think any use of any pesticide in any situation is the mark of
the antichrist?

I hope we can do better than that.

Regards,
Bill

--
Bill Morgan
wtmorgan@pilot.msu.edu
Center for Room Temperature Confusion