Another Technoscience is Possible: Difference between revisions
Investigarte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Investigarte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
</w:WordDocument> | </w:WordDocument> | ||
</xml><![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> More than 20 years ago [http://www.dces.wisc.edu/faculty/kloppenburg/index.php Jack Kloppenburg], a rural | </xml><![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> More than 20 years ago [http://www.dces.wisc.edu/faculty/kloppenburg/index.php Jack Kloppenburg], a rural | ||
sociologist and advocate of farmer-generated local knowledges wrote that | sociologist and long-standing advocate of farmer-generated local knowledges, wrote that | ||
'agricultural science as currently constituted provides neither a complete, nor | 'agricultural science as currently constituted provides neither a complete, nor | ||
an adequate, nor even a best possible account of the sphere of agricultural | an adequate, nor even a best possible account of the sphere of agricultural | ||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
water pollution and numerous other serious damages such as the loss of plant | water pollution and numerous other serious damages such as the loss of plant | ||
and animal species, the destruction of natural pest control mechanisms, the | and animal species, the destruction of natural pest control mechanisms, the | ||
consequent proliferation of new pests and 'super weeds',</span> | consequent proliferation of new pests and 'super weeds', and [http://cleanseedcapital.com/press/?p=924 global warming]</span>. While contemporary biotechnolgy is being promoted by some as the only rational solution to both food security and environmental disaster, many point out that in a form of capitalism dominated by intellectual property rights it will most likely elevate input costs for small and medium-scale farmers to such an extent that the amount of energy they invest will constantly threaten to surpass the energy they harvest. Such a situation will in turn favor further concentration of agribusiness in the hands of a few transnational corporations. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> | ||
< | <o:DocumentProperties> | ||
< | <o:Template>Normal</o:Template> | ||
</ | <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> | ||
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> | |||
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages> | |||
<o:Words>81</o:Words> | |||
<o:Characters>466</o:Characters> | |||
<o:Company>universidad de malaga</o:Company> | |||
<o:Lines>3</o:Lines> | |||
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs> | |||
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>572</o:CharactersWithSpaces> | |||
<o:Version>10.1316</o:Version> | |||
</o:DocumentProperties> | |||
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> | |||
<w:WordDocument> | |||
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> | |||
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> | |||
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> | |||
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> | |||
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/> | |||
</w:WordDocument> | |||
</xml><![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--><!--EndFragment--> | |||
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> | |||
<o:DocumentProperties> | <o:DocumentProperties> | ||
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template> | <o:Template>Normal</o:Template> | ||
Line 111: | Line 132: | ||
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/> | <w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/> | ||
</w:WordDocument> | </w:WordDocument> | ||
</xml><![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> | </xml><![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> | ||
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD"> | |||
</span><!--EndFragment--> | </span><!--EndFragment--> |
Revision as of 11:08, 21 August 2011
Another Technoscience is Possible: Agricultural Lessons for the Posthumanities
edited by Gabriela Mendez Cota
Introduction
The Posthuman Life of Agriculture: Local Knowledges, Open Source Lives
When Foucault introduced the concept of biopolitics he referred to a historically specific power agenda involving a particular approach to life. This approach was at the root of the modern sciences of biology and political economy, both of which set out to describe, explain and manage their objects of study as abstract processes of production and reproduction. Agricultural science must be situated in relation to the biopolitical agenda of 'applying' the modern scientific approach to the management of social life. The scientification of agriculture took place in the United States towards the end of the 19th century through a process that entailed both a delegitimation of farmer-generated knowledges and the production of new, modern subjectivities. As farmers became entrepreneurs in need of scientific education and advice, newly trained agronomists devoted themselves to designing fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds with the goal of maximizing yields. Public institutions were created which coordinated agricultural production with both science and trade policy. Agricultural science was thus inseparable from the process which transformed much of US agriculture into transnational agribusiness, and local farming networks all over the world into consumer endpoints of a globalized food industry.
More than 20 years ago Jack Kloppenburg, a rural
sociologist and long-standing advocate of farmer-generated local knowledges, wrote that
'agricultural science as currently constituted provides neither a complete, nor
an adequate, nor even a best possible account of the sphere of agricultural
production' (2009: 248). Agriculture has been reduced by agriscience to the
exploitation of land through intensive monoculture farming. Oriented towards
the conquest of foreign markets, agricultural production has been made to
depend on mechanization, agrochemicals, and the constant replacement of
improved crop varieties. A cultivar with improved disease or insect resistance
performs well for a few years (typically 5-9), after which yields begin to
drop, productivity is threatened by weeds or pests that have become resistant
to agrochemicals, and a more promising cultivar comes to replace the previous
one (Altieri 2001). In recent years, the efficiency of commercial 'inputs' has
decreased and the yields of key crops have in some places been leveling off.
Mainstream agroscientists believe that this is happening because the maximum
yield potential of current varieties is being approached, and therefore genetic
engineering must be applied to the task of redesigning crops. Critics of
agriscience, however, argue that such a solution would would only make things
wors, since it would amount to an intensification of the conventional
destructive paradigm (Altieri 2001). It is well-known today that
chemical-intensive monoculture farming has everywhere led to soil erosion,
water pollution and numerous other serious damages such as the loss of plant
and animal species, the destruction of natural pest control mechanisms, the
consequent proliferation of new pests and 'super weeds', and global warming. While contemporary biotechnolgy is being promoted by some as the only rational solution to both food security and environmental disaster, many point out that in a form of capitalism dominated by intellectual property rights it will most likely elevate input costs for small and medium-scale farmers to such an extent that the amount of energy they invest will constantly threaten to surpass the energy they harvest. Such a situation will in turn favor further concentration of agribusiness in the hands of a few transnational corporations.