The Speciesist Implications of Agriculture

Absence of bias is a central tenant of ecofeminism. Specifically, absence of bias towards human males, but generally any bias that promotes one group or species above another is antithesis of ecofeminist ethics. By this standard, agriculture inherently places humans above plant life. When we consider the potential degradation of biodiversity associated with the advent of biotechnology, the speciesist nature of agriculture becomes aggravated.

Ecofeminism promotes diversity of understanding stemming from the inclusion of experiences rooted in multi-culturalism. Which implies the rejection of harm to biodiversity of crops and plant-life in general. For example, when corporations patent a seed that has the potential to dominate other strains of its own species (Maghari et al 2011), and when that developed seed becomes widely used, the result is loss of biodiversity caused by human domination of plant species, or speciesism.

From this standpoint, the ethics of all agriculture can be brought into question. Historically, farmers have promoted high quality crop strains in order to improve productivity. From a utilitarian ethics perspective, this is justifiable. However, when we consider our inter-connected relationship with other species, plants in this case, it is impossible to deny that harm is done. Is this a feasible theory of ethics? Can we question the ethics of farming? How will we feed our growing population without tilling the soil and producing crops?

Historically, humans have been hunter-fisher-gatherers (HFG). In fact, for 190,000 years humans foraged and only 10,000 years ago did humans begin the transition to agriculture (Robson 2010). We can argue the harm done by hunting, fishing and gathering versus agriculture, but it is obvious that environmental sustainability is inherent in HFG. The same cannot be said for farming and raising livestock. In fact, the opposite is true.

It is also true that the beginning of modern civilization and all its amenities can be attributed to the transition to agriculture. However, nearly all environmental harm done can also be attributed to this transition. Where do we go from here? This question highlights the status of ecofeminism as a theory-in-process. We understand that our way of life is inherently speciesist, resulting in massive damage to the environment, and that historically humans maintained a sustainable HFG way of life for nearly 200,000 years. Ecofeminism asks the question, “can we transition back?”

Steve

This is an examination of food production from an ecofeminist POV.

Thoughts?


References:

Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (July-September 2011). Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109-117.

Robson, A. J. (February 2010). A bioeconomic view of the Neolithic transition to agriculture. Canadian Journal of Economics, 43(1), 280-300. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2009.01572.x

 

That's an interesting perspective.

or what about trying to apply the imperative of biodiversity to human populations?

 

Humans are the top of the food chain and the dominant species, everything else must adapt to the human race or die off until nature replaces humans in some way. On the other hand it is time to update our technology for agriculture to move to new models not ones thousands of years old using the very reason and technology we rely on. But I like eating meat so won't stop over some whining eco-nuts.

 

Never hear of ecofeminism before this post, but it does make sense that feminine instincts for nurturing should be applicable to how we treat our environment. It's too bad the word showoffs are already diluting that point with their "intersectionalism" and etc claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

From my point of view, anything done to bring sweet table corn back to the flavors I enjoyed in my youth would be great. This new crunchy sweet stuff is wildly disappointing and a bit decadent, IMO.

 

Produce from the super market is complete tasteless crap that has been breed to be big and tough enough to stand up to transport. What we don't grow ourselves we buy from local farmers markets and the quality is not comparable.

 

Not unless you're willing to let the majority of the world's population starve to death.

So no.

 

Actually, I read somewhere years ago that world aid organizations had to provide emergency food supplies in forms that starving people were used to or they wouldn't eat it.

 

Going back to a hunter gatherer would mean having nothing to eat, rather than having something they're not used to. Doesn't even need to go that far back to get a mass starvation, just go back to pre-Green revolution methods, which is FAR more efficient than hunter-gatherer, but still way less efficient than modern agriculture.

 

I hope you're not referring to those horrible no-till methods, which poison the soil with an over-abundance of pesticides and herbicides. I've seen hundreds of acres around here destroyed by that. It mostly seems to be used by farmers getting ready to retire, just before they sell out to developers.

 

Not that in particular no.

Humanity simply can't feed itself through hunter-gatherer methods today. We're too many combined with too little land. We need pesticides, fertilizers, and selective breeding to feed ourselves, or there's simply not enough to go around.

 

Then, eventually, we will all either starve or die of poisoning.

 

Not really.

This whole "ecofeminism" thing is like saying since some people develop problems from vaccines, all medicine should be rejected.

Pesticides are absolutely necessary. The combination of pesticides, fertilizers and selective breeding is why we're able to feed 7 billion people, and can potentially feed a lot more. And new ones are being developed, to lessen the negative effects.

Is modern agriculture perfect? Hell no, but it's way better than going back a couple hundred years and kill off 90% of the population. And this ecofeminism even takes it a step further, not even going back to hunter gatherer societies, since those societies really didn't care too much about the conservation of species, particularly predators.

 

Women evolved in the home, while men were out negotiating with strangers. This is how men learned to drop emotional tactics, and invented logic. Your neighbor requires something from you. A guilt trip will have no effect.

The area of the brain responsible for logic hasn't been developed in females across the board.

Notions such as honor, integrity, justice, - might as well be as foreign as flapping wings to females.

To allow them equal representation has been disastrous, and can only be fixed by logic oriented IQ tests.

Unfortunately instead of fixing this flaw, feminists, while acknowledging it in their own literature, instead established the idea that "emotional logic", ergo the state of human evolution that comes before logic, is somehow on an equal level.

Now a half a century into this madness, we have to explain reality to 150 million females that couldn't understand reality to save their soul - the great majority of which, are the exact same women you've never heard an apology from in your lives.

---

Basically, once dropping the horrible notions that has led to a nation with idiots controlling levers, and going off the true knowledge we should have been going on, the only logical explanation to push a "devolved" state of perspective - would be to convince us all that even though female logic is only truly effective in the home - that on a macro scale, the globe as a whole returns to such an entity.

Such would be purely moronic fantasy.

 

Total bullshit.

 

Exactly. I'm guessing that eco-feminists want to exterminate damselfish then. Damselfish tend an algae "farm" on a rock in their territory. As part of that they pull out and throw away any type of algae that they don't like, thus reducing the biodiversity in their algae patch. Same with most ruminants. By large ruminants (cows, buffalos, etc.) grazing, they favor certain vegetation (namely grasses), hence reducing biodiversity in the process.

 

Until recently, mankind tilted biodiversity in the direction of plants and vegetation it preferred.

Scientists taking over these choices and modifying the original ones for production and other commercial reasons may not leave us with desirable choices.

 

If you read my essay again, it is an argument against ecofeminism. Hence, the question, "can we go back?" It is unrealistic.

However, ecofeminism is suitable in a conservationist application. In other words, managing nature reserves is where we would apply this ethical theory. Outside of that, ecofeminism should only be a part of the conversation, not the standard to go by.

 

You didn't make a strong case against it.

The idea of ecofeminism is still bullshit. Biodiversity is not always the natural thing.

 

I guess if you think it is realistic to ask, "can we return to a HFG way of life?", then you are right, my argument was weak.

To your point, domination of non-humans is not the natural way either, is it?

 

Nah.

In a lot of areas, a lot of threatened species are reliant on agriculture. For example different species of moss and insects in a cultural landscape. Applied ecofeminism would only lead to those species going extinct.

 

I need to research this. I am working on another essay weighing the pros and cons of biotech, and this point could help.

 

Of course it is. It evolved naturally.

 

Look into Norwegian and Swiss agriculture.

Lots of small farms, very little antibiotics, extremely safe food, with a high degree of animal welfare. And a very sustainable way of farming for a country with high income, yet lower agricultural production capabilities than other countries more suited for industrialized agriculture.

 

Switzerland is a net importer of vegetables and animal products. Norway a net importer of vegetables and food products. Not sure you can call that sustainable. Sounds more like boutique local food, being backed up by industrial agriculture elsewhere.

 

I'd like to see some sources on this. Because I'm pretty sure we're not a net importer of food in total.

Of course there will be some import, since not everything grows up here in the cold. But most of the food I buy, is grown and produced in Norway.