From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:09:57 GMT

In article <-1363836905snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.145636.11267@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:
>
> > 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?

I don't know.  Do you?

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

Of course not.  Where'd you get that from?

>After all we have been dependent on plant growth since the
>year dot, fellow, and you might pay some overdue attention to what we
>have learned in that time.

Arrogant, condescending, patronizing, rude.  I can't say I enjoy discussing
these things with you, Gil.

What have we learned?  Earth has supported plant life for millions of years. 
That's sustainability.  Man has been cultivating plants for thousands of years,
fairly sustainably, for the most part.  Starting early this century, we began
supplementing our organic, natural methods with chemical fertilizers and
pesticides.  Rather than being an unqualified success, it's been pretty much a
fiasco--clearly not sustainable.  Yet there are those who insist we're on the
verge of learning all the science there is to know about plants and
agriculture, and that we'll be able to do sustainable agriculture with chemical
fertilizers and pesticides.

That's a leap of faith I'm not willing to make.  I don't say it can't happen, I
just think it's very unlikely and totally unnecessary.

>Now why would technology be inappropriately applied?

Because our knowledge is incomplete.  Why would people expose themselves to
mecury, asbestos, radiation?  Because they weren't aware of the hazards.  Once
we know about the threats, we find ways to avoid them.  The lesson we should
learn from this is that new technologies often have unexpected effects because
of limits to our knowledge.  It is the ultimate arrogance to assume omniscience
on a subject as complex as agriculture.

>Is it perhaps due
>to chronic ignorance and hunger among whole populations struggling merely
>to survive, while more appropriate technology is being implemented?

World food production has always outpaced demand.  Hunger is a political
problem, not a technical problem.  I find it ironic, too, that people argue
against organic techniques as too labor intensive when we have overpopulation
and unemployment.

> > 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.

What does it say to you, Gil?  To me it says Don was being silly.

-- 
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