From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Rifkin and pointers to "Algeny" review
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:01:48 GMT
Organization: UCB - Plant Path. Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

Tim Ikeda writes:
>>I think Rifkin's works should always be read with a touch of
>>incredulity. Put mildly, he has a tendency to gloss-over 
>>contradictory information while at other times over-inflating the
>>significance of his pet ideas. It as if he doesn't realize
>>that two half-truths don't add up to the whole truth.

Ted comments:
>Tim, you may well be right and here very astute in your
>judgement, but I always think it is a good idea
>to at least document one or two examples of what you 
>state are problems of "contradictory information" or
>"over-inflating".  It is simply too easy and glib to
>criticize without at least citing a few examples.

Yes, this is why I suggested that people read Rifkin's book
"Algeny." My thoughts were that people could get a firsthand
view of Jeremy's style, removed from the potential moral 
overtones of his latest book. As a followup to "Algeny" I would
also suggest reading Stephen Jay Gould's critique of "Algeny", which
appears as a chapter in his book: "An urchin in the storm:
reflections in natural history" NY, W.W. Norton, 1987. (Dr. Gould is
a well-known natural historian/evolutionary-biologist who has also
written such books as: "The flamingo's smile", "The mismeasure of
man", The panda's thumb", and "Ontogeny and phylogeny.")
Gould's critique of Rifkin is much more detailed, succinct and
compelling than anything I could describe in a few hundred lines.
Also, Gould's book is very easy to find in most bookstores'
"Natural Science" sections. Browsing through chapter 17 (pg.229-239),
entitled "Integrity and Mr. Rifkin", takes about 5-10 minutes. 
I won't cite excerpts from this chapter since this post is already
too long and the article is  better when read in its entirety.
The journals "Science" and "Nature" frequently report on Rifkin's
efforts as well.

>As the ancient Greeks use to say, "It is easier to tear
>down than build up".  The good critic doesn't spare 
>him or herself the trouble of at least making their 
>destructive critiques more credible by carefully documenting
>their complaints with some unequivocal examples from the
>work in question.  Referring to other writings were mistakes
>may be more readily found is not a good criticism of the
>work at hand as no author is consistently good in
>all his or her published works.  

Well, as point of fact, I wasn't pillorying Rifkin's
"Beyond Beef:..." specifically. If you might recall, from the part
of my last post which you didn't include, I said that it could
well be that much of the information Rifkin presents in his latest
book was spot-on.  Perhaps Jeremy's discourse has finally
matured to the point where he actually is concerned more about 
the factual content of his essays than the rhetoric itself.
For what it's worth, I too am worried about the impact of many
farming methods in practice today and would love to see
a shift to more sustainable agriculture.

However, judging from Rifkin's past work, which includes not just
"Algeny" but also many of the statements and lawsuits originating 
from his Washington-based, "Foundation for Economic Trends", I am
expressing my *opinion* that Jeremy's writings *in general* should 
be read with a grain of salt.  And then a shot of tequila.

While I may often agree with many of Rifkin's goals, I do not like
many of the disingenuous arguements with which he supports his
claims. Gould provides ample evidence for this opinion.

			>Regards,
			>ted

Read "Algeny" or at least Gould's review; then you'll understand
my apprehension.  An author's past work should certainly be taken 
into account when considering their latest creations. In this case
it is not prose which is important, but substance and credibility.

Regards, 
Tim Ikeda

Newsgroups: rec.food.veg