You might be surprised at the number of ecologists that have a very good understanding of agriculture, or even participate in it. I also recall during my undergraduate years that most agriculture students were concerned about the environment. They are land stewards you know. Also, many agriculture faculty that were not focused on agribusiness were working on environmental problems associated with farming. So the door swings both ways. Just because most of us depend on megafarming operations for our food, does not mean that we should simply sit back and ignore the industry. In fact, our dependence on these industries makes it even more critical that we recognize what problems exist and devise ways to deal with them. However, with politically driven agendas by megaindustrial farming operations that really hurt the majority of family farmers (not a new problem!),it is difficult for messages of sustainability and minimal impact to reach producers' ears without a pile of misinformation beating one to the punch. Comments such as the one you posted, however, are neither productive nor do they encourage discussion about these problems. Instead, they raise anger, create divides, and accomplish nothing. Unfortunately, our current climate is such that discussing matters in this way is not uncommon, thanks to regular shouting matches on television designed to push one agenda or another. IF your goal in your statement was to get people to read your post, you violated the first rule of argumentitive writing! You should draw the people in, not drive them away! Consider your audience. Your post just insulted a majority of folks on here, many of whom might have some common ground with your ideas. An alternative approach may have resulted in a lot of people reading your post through to the end.
Build walls and a mystery grows about what is on the other side. Build windows, and you can see what might be going on in your limited view. Build doors, and you can go over and find out what is going on. Build enough doors and you might find no need for walls. Malcolm McCallum On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:07 AM, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?=<[email protected]> wrote: > I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their > noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and > berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was > produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and > berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are > laughably hypocritical. > > Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total > land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous > pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population > continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous > importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is > left of biodiversity. > > Anyone who continues to spout the "agriculture is anathema" rhetoric is > merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble > opinion. > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
