Abby Rosenheck

28 March 1999

Env. Ethics Capstone

New Roots for Agricultural Technology

"There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings." So begins the excerpt in Pojman from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Carson asks us to envision the human ecological harmony that may be the ultimate fantasy of most environmentalists. This allows us to refresh our vision and strengthen our inspiration to fight for this ideal, as she then describes the possibilities of destruction which may await this community. Her imagery reminds us why our struggle for a better life is important, ethical and justified. The writers of the articles that follow dismiss this envisioning as "lyrical hysteria" (Ray and Guzzo) and try to persuade us that our well-reasoned goals are emotional, unfounded preferences. They distract us with the uncertainty of statistical studies, without taking a deep look at the roots of the misdirected technologies that are modern agriculture. Carson, on the other hand, like Japanese ex-microbiologist and farmer Masanobu Fukuoka, seeks more sophisticated analyses of the present need for technology like pesticides, and a truly better alternative. Fukuoka has well shown that natural farming is better than modern farming, not because it measures up in scientific tests of productivity (which it does), but because its basis is ethical, non-violent, and desirable for humans and our environment.

Why are we faced with the painful tradeoffs between the harmful and useful effects of pesticides, rather than the question of why we depend on them so much in the first place? We need to question the culture that directs the science we use to develop our technology. Both Carson and Pimentel describe how scientific farming, that is, farming technology developed by modern scientists, aggravates the need for more pesticides. This is because: "Single-crop farming does not take advantage of the principles by which nature works; it is agriculture as an engineer might conceive it to be" (Carson, 411). Modern farming attempts to control and overpower nature, rather than utilizing natural ecosystem functions for human food production. Fukuoka sees this as the underlying flaw in our scientific culture. The attempt to understand nature is to pin down and violate nature. This goal to dominate nature leads to the development of unethical and destructive technology. As Fukuoka describes the dilemma of pollution, he also argues for seeking the root causes of these problems, rather than continuing to compensate for them with more disruptive technological solutions. He goes beyond the other articles we have read to propose a solution in which the root of our actions, our intentions, are free of the need to dominate and control. He calls for reliance on "undiscriminating knowledge" which arises from experience. This rings true with Pimentel's call for more sophisticated technology that "requires a lot more basic information than scientists now have" (429). Perhaps this information can only come from intimate and prolonged experience of the cycles and functions of nature, rather than from extractive tests and unreliable statistics. An ethical science could thus develop ethical technologies.

We have discussed how utilitarian attempts to measure all costs and benefits of an action in one-dimension, all with the same unit of measure, is unsatisfactory. It occurs to me that although we may succeed at affixing prices to agronomic sustainability, in order to prove that natural systems farming is more economically efficient than modern farming, we environmentalists will still be far from satisfied. There is something in sustainable agriculture that we know is objectively better than modern farming. There is much evidence in the writings of Carson and Fukuoka of this fact. Carson asks "Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?"(412) She reminds us that we do not have to settle for the choice between malaria and birds of prey in the case of DDT, or between shiny, cheap apples and environmental health in the case of Alar. We can demand the world we really want, one that is better because fresh, affordable food does not come at a cost. The American town Carson has the courage to envision is better than what we have now because people thrive with nature, as "prosperous farms"(409), healthy trees, and wildflowers coexist. Fukuoka's agricultural technology improves his lifestyle immensely, due to the leisure time to be spent on art and community recreation, provided by his "do-nothing" farming, in which nature does the work. In fact, Ester Boserup's theory of agricultural growth states that in subsistence communities with low-impact technologies the gains from agricultural growth are used to increase quality of life through more leisure time rather than to increase production (and maximize profits), once subsistence is reached (Boserup, 1966). Rather than optimize financial benefits, people can enjoy this better life, which, as Fukuoka describes, allows time for community values and art to develop. This type of community also might continue to develop ethical technologies. This model provides a better alternative to an agriculture that consists only of increasing production through modern technology.

Much of the mainstream dialogue about pesticides and other forms of pollution attempts to obscure and prevent a deeper look into the origins of modern technological problems, and to prevent popular demand for this better alternative. Fumento shows that he is threatened by such prospects, as he resorts to name-calling to persuade his readers that "environmental extremists" and "besiegers of science"(426) are clearly irrational. He attempts to immerse us in the simplified world where scientists reveal absolute truths and people with emotions merely enjoy causing hysteria. Although he himself says that "the battle against Alar was merely a small part of the war against pesticides in general"(426), he denies that such impassioned hard work by the populace could indicate carefully thought out facts about what is good for us and our children. Perhaps the reason why struggles against pesticides appeal so strongly to so many people, as evidenced by their popularity as newspaper headlines, is because people know that a better alternative is possible. The specific scientific tests on Alar do not matter; what does matter is that many Americans understand the reasons why pesticide use is not the best technology to use to produce healthy food. When people like Ralph Nader do not have the political or financial influence to carry "a very big stick"(419), as Fumento suggests they do, popular mobilization and activism are the tools of choice. Such political action does represent the demands of consumers, because these activists have no other power than consumers in numbers. What other threats Fumento thinks activists can use to "exer[t] brute intimidation"(419) against grocery stores I cannot imagine. The demands of masses of people may not always reflect what is best for the group, but they cannot be dismissed as inherently ignorant or irrational. Writers who jump to this conclusion may be trying to prevent us from exploring the peoples' underlying motivation for action, as Fumento tries when he ridicules those "besiegers" who challenge modern science.

In combating these simplified dialogues that silence innovation, I think our discussion of ethics is on the right track. We must approach the development and use of agricultural production technology with our well-reasoned decisions why working with nature is better than dominating it. There is more to ethical decisions than proving that Alar does not poison children. We must find a way to incorporate into the sciences that create our technologies the ethical intentions that drive parents to fight against agricultural chemicals.

Work Cited:

Boserup, Ester. 1966. The conditions of agricultural growth: economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Chicago, Aldine Pub. Co.