[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Biotechnology - straw man arguments



Folks:  following on from Michelle's beautifully articulated 
comments, I thought I'd forward part of a long dialogue relating to 
biotechnology on another net.  Dr. Ben Norman (UCD) and I, as well as 
others, were discussing the merits and concerns of agricultural 
biotechnology, and the following dealt with just one axis - namely, 
the argument that without continued "progress", we cannot hope to 
feed the world.  I'll be interested in comparing your comments on 
this interchange, compared to that which was elicited on BeefToday.  
Ann

 - - - - - - - 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