I have to say this interesting debate is a bit odd for me since usually
I have to argue with managers and politicians who ride the concept for
propaganda, namely I am used to be the sceptic one about the so-called
sustainability...
> Actually, the market works. The market responds to buzz words like
> "sustainability" and "organic". It also responds to social pressure, and
> generally works with government for accommodating laws. Remove the
> market and, as in the ex-Soviet Union, you have massive corruption and
> pollution.
>
> Also, such broad statements like "so obviously destructive of the
> communities and ecosystems that sustain our quality of life" seem a bit
> overblown for what is right here in the US compared to the old USSR.
Here is the shift in logic :
sustainability does not go along with market
abscence of market leads to communsim
communism leads to USSR thus to dictature and pollution
so sustainability leads to dictature and pollution
Then we have to debug:
sustainability is a concept developed in democratic and free market
societies. It never meant nor required the disappearance of market or
democraty but - at least - it leads to the internalisation of
environemental and social impacts in the market prices. Namely,
pollution or ecosystems destruction must no longer be free. Thus,
sustainability does not imply communism and so on, as far I understand
the concept. One can benchmark countries on a serie of sustainability
indicators and see that different results can be obtained in democratic
and free market countries. By the way, we can measure how destructiv are
certain developement pathways.
> > When you use remanent chemical that bring up pests resistance you know
> > you are out of the way.
> > When you treat systematically and massively bees because your management
> > weaken your bees, you know you are out of the way.
> Change all references from bees to humans and most on this list would be
> dead.
> Stop antibiotics because bugs develop resistance.
> Stop all surgery and treatment of children and adults to weed out the
> weak.
> Stop all travel since infected people spread disease.
> True, if you lived like we did in the 1700's, most of us would never
> have been born.
Same shift in logic.
Questioning the use of hard chemical means total ban of medication so
leads us to prehistoric times.
Questioning the current intensiv breeding of porks (or othe feedstock)
that leads to intensiv development of illness, antibiotic
treatments/resistance and intensiv pollution flow will prevent us to
take care as well of our children.
Then we have to debug:
Questioning the use of hard chemical, be in beekeeping or other sector,
means to look for their rational use. In beekeeping, the fashion 3 years
ago was with IPM after 10 years of massiv systematic use. With regard to
antibiotics, let me take the time of a personnal anecdote as an
illustration.
I have 2 children, 5 and 7 years old. One never had to use anitbiotics
in her life. The other had to use them 3 or 4 times because of
persisting otitis. We were critic about the use but not dogmatic.
A couple of years ago, otitis were systematically treated with
antibiotics. It appeared that 80% of otitis were viral, so antibiotics
were useless. Now, MD recommand to let 3 days to children to recover
from the potential virus and if the otitis persists, then it is assumed
bacterial and treated. We a have friends with 2 young children of same
age. Each one was treated with antibiotics multiple times per year, by
fear at the first doubt of an otitis. They already have resistance with
5 classes of antibiotic over 6 if I understood well.
The fact that I question to way feedstock are reared, how it impacts our
quality of life doesn't prevent me from caring of my children.
Sustainability doesn't lead to let my children die of the first desease
around.
But I read everyday how much pesticides are present in mothers milk and
pollen, how air quality impacts children allergies.
The idea is that we have to let apart dogmatic positions as "free for
all, let's do anything we want anyway we want" or "go back to caves".
As defined, sustainability is certainly not a back in past nor a run
against progress. It should not be a dogmatic religion either. It is
quest for a more intelligent and a lucider way to develop. I think we
are intelligent enough to allow us to question the way we are donig
things, aren't we ?
Hervé
--
Hervé
www.emelys.com
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
