> Douglas,
>
> .....On the other hand, I agreed from the start that the
> change is going incremental in most cases, and that there are a number
> of grey rather than black and white issues involved. But this is not to
> say there are no absolute truths. And I see no reason for any hard
> feelings.
>
> Thanks, I don't want to elicit hard feelings either. On some aspects,
> we may just have to agree to disagree.
We agree on a number of important points.
> What is interesting is the
> depth, and sincerity of the disagreement. For example, you said:
>
> > I find some of your assertions incredible, unreal; but not
> > without their element of humor. Just don't expect me to swallow all
> > of it. Itīs soometimes hard enough to believe you're even saying
> > these things. You may well be a swell guy, good buddy and down to
> > earth family man. I have nothing against you personally. I just
> > can't take all of what you say seriously and do find some of it
> > annoying.
> >
> > I became exasperated by some of your statements. I did not mean
> > that you necessarily had no vision, but rather that it was either a
> > vastly different perspective or (possibly) a lack of vision - or a
> > little of both
> >
> I feel much the same way about you, and much of what I read on SANET.
> This level of disagreement is unsettling to many people. Yet...
Yet it's something that will have to be worked out. I'm sure there are others
that share your opinion, and who like you are involved in the field in some
capacity.
> > I would agree that all assumptions must be continually
> > re-examined, in practice.
> >
> I agree completely with you (isn't that refreshing :^D).
I figured that would be a major area of common ground.
> ...am going to have to let someone else do the stats for
> now (I've got projects to get out the door), and in any case I think my
> case would be best made in a court of law - meaning I'd be most useful
> working at that level (activist), rather than by accumulating further
> evidence.
>
> > I'm not going to use it or reccomend it's use to anyone
> > [literature citations], so maybe you shouldn't bother. (It might to
> > interesting to know who funded those studies, though). I am opposed
> > to DDT as a matter of principle
> >
> So you are unwilling to re-examine your technical assumptions?
I am not "unwilling to re-examine my technical assumptions". You have not
responded to some of my statements regarding the basic differences in
approach, between chemical and biological agriculture. Additionally, I have
other committments that are more important to me (you are questioning areas
that for me are givens and I'm confident my assumptions are valid - they've
been examined). If you want to re-examine the object of my faith using a
distinct set of criteria, it's possible (maybe probable) that I'll find a
justifiable fault with the objectivity and moral intregrity of your sources
(judging from what I've seen so far).
It can all be worked out but will be time consuming and perhps, not
particularly productive, at least in the near term. It probably should be
done in any case, but not necessarily by me or right now - at least not all of
it; because I'm involved in other things and this is YOUR workspace -
justifying the get rich schemes of large agroindustrial corporations through
the results of the studies they pay to have done.
We're probably going to wind up with completely different figures and the
matter will ultimately be setlled in court or in congress anyway, and probably
not until after a lot of public pressure from grass roots movements is brought
to bear - The Dolphin - Tuna thing is a case in point. And look at how many
years it took for the tobacco thing to get anywhere. Those deaths will never
be repaid, regardless of how many billions the polluteers shell out - but
continuing to reap death for profit will no longer be profitable, so new areas
of investment will be substituted. The damage due to agent orange, likewise.
Medicine IS the same in that in principle: The least invasive and toxic remedy
should be used. However, that is not what usually happens in medicine and
much less so in agriculture. The profit motive DOES drive research - but when
public health is at stake, thereīs a call for public solutions. Not
exclusively public solutions - just as there's public and private modes of
transportation, package delivery services, education and generic medicines
(public domain). Add the internet. There's a mixture of public and private
resouces at play in these fields, ostensibly in relation to the degree of
public good involved
You could check these sources for data: Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicologoy; Reviews of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicologoy; Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiolgy
(Princeton Scientific Publishing) and Clinical and -Exipeimental Allergy, Vol.
25, No 1 : Human Exposure to Emvironmental Pollutants: A Decade of
Experience. I haven't looked at any of them yet and don't know when I'll get
a chance (I expect to be on the road in a few days, with a lot to do
beforehand).
> > My approach to agriculture is coming from a different
> > perspective, which in general terms could be considered evolutionary.
> > (I recommend your reading a recent post of Micha's on that subject, if
> > you haven't done so).
> >
> I tend to agree. The technical issues are somewhat beside the point,
> because your intuitions and deep feelings about this and related issues
> are driven by philosophical assumptions that I doubt you have critically
> examined.
That is exactly where you are wrong. Metaphysics is my strong point, and
philosophy my area of academic concentration (until my findings led me beyond
the campus and into the world on my own, many years ago).
> I certainly have read Misha's beautifully written post. It expresses a
> particular kind of philosophical foundation that is itself an artifact
> of modernity. The organicist, historicist, and ultimately dualistic
> habit of thought to which you and many on this list subscribe, leads to
> the gut feelings and intuitions in which you place so much trust. Would
> you like to discuss these philosophical assumptions?
>
> Dale
It might be interesting to see what you do with it. Just try to be specific.
What did you think about my avocado seed example?
--Douglas M. Hinds Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dhinds@ucol.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".