-Who (and what) benefits and who (and what) is disadvantaged
(especially compared to not having these crops)?
-How would biodiversity be affected?
-How would this affect the rate of change in the biosphere?
In general I would not favor use of crops that lead to greater social
inequality (including of access to resources and of power), that undermine
biodiversity or other aspects of sustainability (arguably rendering our food
system less stable), and accelerate change (systems with high rates of
change are likely to be more unstable and prone to problems). Changes tend
to be promoted by those who believe they will benefit from them and any
costs that arise later tend to be borne others. This position reflects my
values, but in practice application of values is situated in particular
circumstances and tough tradeoffs are often involved. What risks are we
more willing to accept and what risks are we less willing to accept?
Genetically engineered organisms are probably not unalloyed evils, but they
at best risky (like any other intended or unintended introduction of new
genetic materials into ecosystems). What about crops that are
salt-tolerant? Were they to be used to promote local food self-sufficiency
in an area with salinized soils, possibly yes. Were they to be used to
permit continued over-irrigation, most likely no.
Like most of the other issues discussed on SANET, especially that of "what
is sustainable?", I would expect a variety of stances on Lockeretz's
question. Exploring these stances is important in defining who we are.
****************************************************************************
Gil Gillespie voice: 607-255-1675
Department of Rural Sociology (& fax: 607-254-2896
Division of Nutritional Sciences ) e-mail: gwg2@cornell.edu
439 Warren Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
USA
The transition to sustainability is like a bend in the road. It will be
the end of the road only if we fail to negotiate the turn.
****************************************************************************