In this article, Richard Black reports on studies comparing organic farming with intensive modern agriculture (2012). The results are clear: intensive farming produces substantially more food than do organic methods, making it more likely to actually be able to feed the world's burgeoning population, although critics rightly argue that intensive techniques are harmful to insect species such as bees and contribute to wider ecological imbalances through the nitrogenous fertilizer run-offs. Further, the smaller, labour intensive nature of organic farming appears to have some social benefits, such as employment.
The reason I've chosen to blog on this topic is that it conveniently exemplifies the question of natural versus unnatural which came up in Poupee's blog on same-sex marriage, especially in the discussion. The connection with organic farming is clear: many people support organic farming and consumers willingly pay higher prices for organic foods solely because it's seen as more natural than intensive farming's use of technology such as fertilizers, pesticides, heavy machinery, and the like. The underlying feeling seems to be that natural equates with good. But is this right?
As Black's article clearly suggests, if we want to actually produce food efficiently, the natural, traditional methods of organic farming are bad news: they are more expensive, use more resources and are unlikely to be able to successfully produce enough food to feed the world well. That is, the artificial, unnatural methods of human culture and ingenuity seem superior to the far more natural and traditional methods of the organic farming movement favoured by deluded consumers with much money and little sense and by dishonest political manipulators who push things like organic farming and small, sufficiency scale production to keep farmers poor and under control.
And the specific question I wanted to discuss is: Does being natural equate with being good?
Even if, for example, heterosexual sex and lusts were natural and homosexual sex and desires unnatural, would that be in any way relevant support for either?
My own opinion is that the common thinking on these questions is completely wrong, but what do others think?
__________
References
Puppy Poupee. (2012, May 12). Obama says same-sex marriage should be legal. Class Blog - AEP at AUA. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be.html
I heard about organic farming for 2-3 years ago, I didn't know about it so much. But I used to buy the product from organic farm such as fruits, vegetable, cream, lotion etc. I have to pay in higher price than normal one. But I think they all the same, I didn't know how are they different.
ReplyDeleteI have known about to do vegetable garden, agriculturist use the chemical to plant them. They plant in the water and vitamin chemical to grown vegetable.
Yes, most of our common thinking is natural is better because if you are against nature, here comes a problem. For example, nowadays, more and more people do the plastic surgeries for face, nose, mouth, even breast because they are not satisfied with their own natural parts of body. As we all know, the news also reports many of the bad effects after they use the unnatural organs. From that, do you agree natural is better than artificial? Maybe you will say, how about for those who they lost their natural parts of body. For instant, a woman who has breast cancer need to cut off her breast, or someone's nose is broken by an accident. From these cases, I will change my version to agree that putting an artificial organ is better for them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, I guess that Peter hope us try to think deeper and to figure out the true, connotative meaning behind a thing because it is usually not shown one the surface that we can easily to see.
I agree that a thing always has both sides and I think the world, the society, everything all need balance. Balancing with good or bad, natural and unnatural is the real world we are living. According to Darwin's Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest. Good is never for good , in other word, bad is never be bad forever as well. (P.S. What am I saying? I think I am too sleepy to think anymore.....Good night,all )
Rainbow Gaga,
DeleteThank you for the excellent response. Yes: I am trying to push us to think a little more deeply and critically than we might when chatting with friends at MK Suki.
And your response above does that very well. You use the contrasting examples drawn from body modification to make your point very well.
I guess it's a bit unnatural to be sitting in front of a computer, blogging at 1:35 AM, but I'm very glad you overcame your natural instincts and did it, although perhaps it's better not to stay up too late every night.
Altough I cannot see the differece between the organic food and normal food, I think organic food is better. As you know most of the food we eat nowaday were passed many process that can have some residue that can harm our body. Pesticide is used by many farmers in Thailand, the objective of using this matter is to keep crop survive from pest. Though farmers use it overabundantly so it's should not be good gor the consumer. I think farmer should think of the consumer more than the profit that they will get if their crop survive. There are many ways to kepp your crop alive except using pesticide. I'm the one who choose natural thogh it is more expensive.
Delete