- - - - - - - Forwarded Message Follows - - - - - - -
From: "E. Ann Clark" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
Organization: Crop Science, The Univ. of Guelph
To: beeftoday-l@angus.mystery.com
Date sent: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:16:52 EDT
Subject: Re: Biotechnology - straw man arguments
Priority: normal
Send reply to: beeftoday-l@angus.mystery.com
NOTE: Replies are directed back to beeftoday-l@angus.mystery.com
To reply to the author, write to "E. Ann Clark" <ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA>
Dear Ben: regarding "straw man" arguments (pardon the implied
sexism):
Ben said: > A modern Luddite would recognize that we can't support
today's present human population or lifestyle without technology
and that the domination of the Luddite view would condemn
millions (billion?) to death.
Ann said: >Here, we will have to disagree, because you are setting
up a straw man argument (pardon me, a straw person argument).
Profiling the weaknesses of technologies founded upon linear
thinking is not dismissing the need for technology per se.
Rather, it is suggesting the urgent need for technologies founded
upon the explicit recognition of the broader range of impacts and
responses than short-term economic returns (which are themselves
highly manipulated, fickle, and unreliable as a foundation for
agricultural research and practice, although I will readily grant,
one must be profitable to survive - see our chapter in the ASA
publication on Agric. Res. in the NE US for more on this). Even
Aldo Leopold - devil incarnate though he is in some minds - didn't
pretend that humans should abstain from eating. His Land Ethic
explicitly references "using" land with care and respect - not
avoiding use at all. > >
> >It is also a straw person argument to say that we are actually
> >feeding the world's population with our advanced agricultural
> >technology, and that failure to persist in that technology will
> >somehow make them all starve. Another argument for another day.
> >
>
Then Ben said:> I'm not too profound and am not sure what you mean
about the straw "person" argument. ("let them eat straw...?") But,
technology is necessary to support today's population. One combine,
one driver; one horse drawn combine, one driver and 27 horses and
the support staff that requires; no combine and you need about 30
knives and 30 cutters, plus the backup required there. No estrogen-
like ear implants in feedlot cattle and you need several million
more acres of grain land to produce the same pounds of fatter beef.
And...if everyone became vegetarians or bean-eaters, just think of
the cost of improving the air exchange systems and improving noise
> abatement in all of our buildings--see I can think holistically.>
To the foregoing I would say - A straw man argument is a debating
technique where one sets up a contrast that can only lead to one
reasonable outcome, not because the "losing" argument is necessarily
flawed but because it was represented in a way as to seem ludicrous
by comparison. In the present context,
* technology is necessary to feed humans
* if we don't have technology, humans will die, therefore,
* challenges to technology will kill humans
This is classic Dennis Avery (you aren't writing under a pseudonym,
are you friend Ben?).
This line of reasoning presumes that contemporary agricultural
technology, which has been developed under primarily linear thinking
(see below), is the only kind of technology that has any hope of
feeding humans. Since we are such good friends now, may I suggest
that we frame this position not as a presumption, but as a testable
hypothesis? Now, how would one test this hypothesis? What would it
take to convince you that this hypothesis is not supported by the
"data" - in other words, to reject the hypothesis that linear-guided
agricultural technology - of which biotechnology is the latest and
greatest example - is the only technology worthy of pursuing in the
aim of feeding humans - lots of humans? Just to keep it simple,
let's leave out the notion of feeding them forever - e.g.
sustainability - because as has already occurred on this thread, it
will lead to a million divergent tangents.
OK - so, we are testing the hypothesis that the only technology
worth pursuing to feed humans is the kind we have now - largley
based on linear (not holistic) thinking. Would the hypothesis be
challenged or indeed rejected if we can find holistic technologies
that are in fact commercially viable and sufficiently productive to
feed lots of humans?
First to clarify - as requested by Brad - what is holism, and what
kinds of agricultural practice might be considered more and less
holistic? I would suggest that many common agricultural practices -
say, crop rotation and mixed livestock:crop agriculture - are
fundamentally holistic in nature, although the practicioners wouldn't
have called it that by name. Indeed, prior to the intervention of
resource-intensive agriculture in the latter half of this century,
many farmers were, at heart, holists - they had to be. That is,
their crop mgt practices were/are designed with the explicit
understanding and intent of capturing the synergies between
successive crops in the rotation, of integrating crop and livestock
agriculture to mutual benefit, of channeling natural processes and
energy to practical and pragmatic purposes (e.g. yield), and of
*avoiding undesirable side effects* instead of buying something to
suppress the side-effect after the fact.
Be clear that I am NOT saying that pre-1950 farmers were all
holistic, or that farming was environmentally benign prior to the
invention of fertilizer and biocides. There are countless examples
of significant harm done to the agricultural landscape prior to 1950.
So, don't misunderstand my point. Rather, I am saying that farmers
of that era, and indeed, many farmers today, successfully channeled
natural energy (as against fossil fuel energy) toward the goals of
profitable, commercial agriculture.
Conversely, linear thinking applies inputs and manages the crop
*without regard for side effects and synergies*, toward a single aim -
most often yield or money. I AM NOT DISPUTING YIELD OR PROFIT AS A
GOAL, and I AM NOT SAYING THAT HOLISTIC FARMING DOES NOT RELY ON
PURCHASED INPUTS, so don't get diverted onto those tangents either.
The distinction between holism and linearity is not the overall goal,
but rather, the degree to which interactions and side-effects are
explicitly integrated into management decisions. Systems based
on linear thinking substitute purchased inputs for the captured
synergies sought in an holistically design system, and use those
same purchased inputs to compensate and suppress the
resultant "system" resistance to the linear assumptions of the first
inputs. We do this because we can - inputs have been cheap relative
to the value of the commodities, so it was economically rational.
This scenario has not pertained for some years now - the price of
inputs is rising much faster than the value of the commodities.
To illustrate, consider the case of ICM wheat - it is usually easier
to see the flaw when it does not affect or challenge you directly, so
let's use an example that not many North Americans will jump to
defend - Intensive Cereal Management of wheat. ICM wheat is based on
very high population densities (400+ tillers/m2); very high and split
applications of N fertilizer to stimulate growth; growth regulators
to channel growth to grain instead of stems and to reduce lodging; and
fungicides to compensate for the mildews and molds that proliferate
within the lush dense, tightly packed canopy. So, referring back to
the linearity argument of inputs compensating for inputs compensating
for inputs:
First generation inputs: high yield results from high density
planting and high N
Second generation input: growth regulators compensate for the N
response
Third generation inputs: fungicides compensate for the fungal
response to density and N.
Fourth generation inputs: fungal pathogens develop resistance
to the fungicides; plant breeders then have guaranteed lifelong
employment, looking for resistance to the various pests created by
the first generation decision, namely, to grow wheat in a way that
created the pests in the first place.
This is precisely the situation that we have created with linear-
based technologies in North America today. Pests created by linear
management systems are to be addressed by finding and inserting
resistance genes, rather than backing off and saying, how can we
configure the system to AVOID the pests in the first place? To
illustrate:
Corn rootworm has traditionally been avoided by growing corn in
rotation with other non-host crops. This is, in fact, one of the
several justifications for crop rotations in general - to avoid
buildup of pest and weed species. Few Ontario producers grow
continuous corn any more, although it was common a few decades ago.
So, what do I see in recent weeks, but some new corn hybrid has been
developed with corn rootworm resistance. Now, who would NEED such a
resistance? Under what conditions would resistance to corn rootworm
be economically rational?
OK - I hope that I have clarified what I mean by holistic vs.
linear thinking.
So, in closing, let me ask, if we can agree that holistically based
farming practices - based on the definition I've presented above -
can be economically and agronomically competitive, would you agree
that the hypothesis that the linear way is the only way has been
rejected?
If so, would you further agree that pests are not born, but are
created by management (e.g. growing corn after corn to create corn
rootworm as a pest; pushing cows to produce so much with BST that
mastitis is created as a major disease; growing ICM wheat which
creates resistant fungal pathogens)?
If so, would you then agree that biotechnology - which is largely
finding genes to resist various problems - would be a non issue if we
more fully embraced holistic thinking in the design of our systems,
to AVOID the problem in the first place, rather than jumping in with
additional inputs after the fact?
And finally, that food production need not be compromised, and
indeed, producer profitability might be enhanced, by designing
systems that were not fundamentally dependent upon increasing levels
of purchased inputs? Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933