From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:03:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.163841.19914@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>In my opinion, simply presenting organic production methods as the ONLY way
>we can proceed is RASH

Agreed.  Now either provide an example of someone doing that or drop it.

>>>I admit, organic is one of those ways, but it doesn't even come close to
>>>meeting the requirement of a hungry world.
>>
>>Why not?
>
>they are too slow to be implemented IMMEDIATELY with the objective of 
>maintaining a continuous uninterrupted supply of food.. to the whole world,
>not just to the US of A!

That's plain goofy!  No methodology will pass the criterion you suggest above. 
Just because organic techniques can't replace the current ones overnight
doesn't mean they can't be phased in.

If we're going to continue the status quo until we discover the sustainable
agriculture silver bullet that will let us painlessly abandon our current
practices overnight, we'll never change.  The change should, *must* be gradual
but immediate.

>>I have concerns about genetic engineering, reliance upon hybrids, and the use
>>of monocultures, but that's a can of worms of another color.
>
>That just goes to show you what I've been talking about... you have CONCERNS,
>but I note you didn't elaborate on the nature of those concerns... or what
>they're based upon.

Correct.  It's called "focus".  I didn't want to start the thread off on
another tangent.  And is one not allowed to have concerns without expressing
them?

>There's a vast difference between genetic engineering and
>BREEDING disease-resistant cultivars of crops. You haven't even gotten THAT
>far... so how valid can your concerns be in relation to hybrids etc?

The validity of my concerns is independent of my training, knowledge, etc. 
They are valid or not--regardless of whether I'm a peanut polisher or a Nobel
laureate biologist.

I do understand the distinction between genetic engineering and selective
breeding, thank you.

>>>all of these things, when used, reduce our dependency on chemicals. How come
>>>none of you out there have mentioned them?
>>
>>Perhaps because they're unproven, unsustainable, or contrary to our beliefs.
>
>well, it wasn't so long ago they were saying those very same things about
>organic production methods.

"They"?  If "they" wasn't you or me, what does it have to do with this
discussion?

>The truth is they HAVE been proven, they ARE
>sustainable (although not by laymen such as yourself), and they are not at all
>contrary to anybody's beliefs that I know of.

Great, let's hear more!

>How, for example, could it be
>against anybody's beliefs (or unprove, or unsustainable) to take advantage
>of the fact that an insect overwinters in a particular way... by reducing
>the initial numbers of the bugs in the spring, the whole growing season will
>benefit.

Beats me.  Taking such factors into account is an important part of organic
farming.

>>How did you reach that conclusion?  Are you *that* sure there's no other reason
>>they haven't been mentioned?
>
>yes

What arrogance.  It's clear to me now that the reason they haven't been
mentioned is because they're already part of organic farming.  Exactly what do
you think organic farming is if it doesn't include such techniques as crop
rotation and awareness of the lifecycles of pests?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture