From: liberte@cs.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:58:55 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Dept CS

I'm getting rather tired of reading some of your non-arguments.  Please
stick to logic as much as possible.

   In article <1992Nov17.145636.11267@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

    > Firstly, I'm not a part of any "organic movement".  
    > I'm a concerned individual...

   Thanks for the resume on your qualifications and experience in this
   area.

Hey, we can't all get a degree in agriculture *and* computer science.
But not having a degree in an area certainly doesnt disqualify us from
knowing something about it.

    > Secondly, I did *not* conclude that there were undiscovered
    > plant nutrients.  I *think* there probably are micronutrients we
    > don't fully understand the importance of, and I think there
    > probably are certain plants whose nutritional requirements
    > aren't fully understood.

   Are there, or are there not? 

He said there probably are.  Read it.  And what is wrong with
confessing that we (all of us) just do not know enough.  Assuming we
do know enough when we don't is the danger.

You'll probably want to turn that last statement around and suggest that
people in the organic movement assume they do know enough when they don't.
Here is the defense: nature "knows" even if we don't, so following nature's
way when we are in doubt is generally safer.

   Do you suggest that the entire corpus of what we *do* know be
   rejected in a new search for "undiscovered" plant nutrients?

Where do you get the idea that he is suggesting that?  Come on!  To
admit that we don't know everything about the world is certainly not
to reject everything we do know.

    > >Seems that anything chemical must, by definition, be bad.
    >  
    > Horseshit.  Don't be a fool, Don.  We have all come to terms with
    > "chemicals"--that's not the problem.  The problem is inappropropriate
    > application of technology.

   Now why would technology be inappropriately applied? 

He is talking about our own inappropriate application of technology to
our own farms.  Current practices are arguably appropriate in that our
food is feeding the starving billions.  But it is still inappropriate
application of technology when considering long term sustainability.
However, just because it is inappropriate doesnt mean that all chemicals
are bad, or even most chemicals.

    > Oooh!  You had me scared there, Don.  Next thing you know, you'll be telling me
    > I'm being constantly bombarded with radiation!
    >  
    > Sheesh.

   This last says it all.

So what are you saying to add to this conversation?  Don is clearly
guilty of exaggerating the positions of the organic movement.  It is
quite frustrating wading through his drivel to find some useful
information, and I would suggest that both of you temper your comments
if you want to convince anyone of anything.

Everyone could use a little moderation.  Please.

Dan LaLiberte
liberte@cs.uiuc.edu
(Join the League for Programming Freedom: lpf@uunet.uu.net)
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle."





   --
   Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
   Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
   PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
      * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *