Now, I'm not going to bother replying the personal insults, that's a game that leads nowhere.[/b]
hehe, i assume you're referring to "or just keep masturbating psuedo-intellectual opinions all over me".
actually, i heard that one in forum recently, and i was just waiting for the slighest provocation to use it. and i get annoyed when people imply i hold opinions to be 'radical'. i dislike people who denouce everything 'mainstream' without a good reason as much as the next rational person does.
I'll simply point out again that there are many good practices in conventional agriculture that do not qualify as 'organic' and should be encouraged (zero-tillage seeding, perfectly anodyne pesticides that reduce waste). [/b]
well, i define organic in the literal sense- without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. zero tillage seeding DOES fall under the heading of organic. i am all for it, whether used in organic or non-organic farming.
. . i cannot make an informed decision on anodyne pesticides, but until i see some credible research done on its short-term AND long-term effects i will err on the side of purely organic. again, this is simply a personal bias due to mistrust in pesticides unless they have well-documented studies showing them superior in the long term.
Once again, the goal should not be to boycott and abolish the conventional agriculture system, it should be to regulate and refine it to reduce its impact on the environment.[/b]
agreed
my main mistrust in 'conventional agriculture" is is summed up in that very phrase, and its present usage. humanity domesticated plants thousands of years ago, and used organic methods until some decades ago, when scientists learned to slap together chemicals which acheived certain short-term goals. and yet somehow the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers assembled in laboratories are 'conventional', and the agricultural proccesses thousands of years old need to be defended.
the way i view the world, the new must prove itself as superior to the tried and true comprehensively and completely before it is deserving of becoming the new convention.
and a whole new 'system' should not be swallowed wholesale. certain man-made chemicals may be beneficial in all ways, and thus used. fine. but to accept a whole slew of them indiscriminately and rapidly seems foolish, especially with horrendous track record some of them have already shown.
as i already mentioned, just because something works short-term, or acheives a certain desired affect, doesn't mean it can't have drastic long-term effects, or unanticipated side-effects. DDT being a prime example yet again.
so, i would rather support organic farming when possible, in order to put the onus on 'conventional' agribusiness to refine their methods to a level i am comfortable with. presently, i certainly trust organic farming more than conventional.
P.S. My first post, as well as parts of my second and third come from literature called The Rebel Sell by a duo of sociology profs at the University of Toronto, complete with footnotes and references. It's a great book, I suggest you check it out[/b]
maybe i will, but i doubt it. i have a distaste for books dealing with consumerism, whichever side they take.
i'm not one of the people who wears 'che' t-shirt manufactured in sweatshops, or pays 90$ to see some 'anti-capitalist' band, so that read doesn't sound like it would appeal to me. thanks for the recommendation though.
in the end, i am fairly 'technophobic' in some ways. that is why our worldviews are irreconcilable. i am all for progress. but i have seen arrogance do so much harm in the past couple centuries. i am not the kind of person to waste exorbiant amounts of time arguing against capitalist economic policies, the industrial-military complex, unproven agricultural methods (including both the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and genetic modification).
i simply have seen them do more harm than good, looking at things from an objective as possible angle. i am grateful for the good. electricity, certain medicines and medical technology, the internet and computers, etc. are amazing, worthwhile, helpful innovations which show the value of the human intellect.
but the positive changes have made many arrogant and near-sighted, and brought us into a world where every major ecological system in the entire world is in decline, the rate of cancer and conditions like asthma and diabetes is skyrocketing, and concrete jungles convince some that humans have someone separated themselves from nature, which created us.
the middle road seems to be best in most cases. so i'll stay mostly on one side, and you'll stay mostly on the other, and hopefully one day a compromise will satisfy us both.
i don't think there is really much else to say on this topic...take it easy..
|
|
Bookmarks