4 ms·
I'm no fan of pesticides -- far, far, from it -- but this is unadulterated ideological polemic. Reading the actual report, the argument can be summed up as:
by nkoren 10y ago
I'm no fan of pesticides -- far, far, from it -- but this is unadulterated ideological polemic. Reading the actual report, the argument can be summed up as:
1. Pesticides are bad.
2. Pesticides are bad.
3-8. Pesticides are bad.
9. Oh and they don't even do anything.
The first sections may be entirely true, but are not a cost/benefit analysis. I could easily believe that 200,000 die every year from pesticide toxicity. But if 100 million people are saved from starvation every year due to pesticide use, then that isn't an argument against it. You need to present both sides of an argument in order for it to be anything less then polemical.
The final section is based on misrepresentation of sources. For example, first source they cite[1] does, in fact, state in the abstract that:
Despite a clear increase in pesticide use, crop losses
have not significantly decreased during the last 40 years.
And then goes on to state:
However, pesticide use has enabled farmers to modify
production systems and to increase crop productivity without
sustaining the higher losses likely to occur from an
increased susceptibility to the damaging effect of pests.
The concept of integrated pest/crop management includes a
threshold concept for the application of pest control
measures and reduction in the amount/frequency of pesticides
applied to an economically and ecologically acceptable
level. Often minor crop losses are economically acceptable;
however, an increase in crop productivity without adequate
crop protection does not make sense, because an increase in
attainable yields is often associated with an increased
vulnerability to damage inflicted by pests.
...Which is completely counter to the assertions made in the anti-pesticide article.
This is crap. If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.
1: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...
2: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-science/article/div-classtitlecrop-losses-to-pestsdiv/AD61661AD6D503577B3E73F2787FE7B2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultu...
[edit: formatting]
- criddell 10y ago> If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense. I agree with everything you said, except maybe this. Polemical nonsense can be more effective than science if you are trying to alter policy or public opinion. If that weren't true, global warming wouldn't be controversial.
- sametmax 10y agoSomething I wish more scientist minded people would understand. Moving people people has nothing to do with being right. If you care about a topic, education is only a long term investment. You need a short term action has well, and it can't appeal to logic.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tonmoy 10y agoHaven't heard anyone say GW is controversial except in the US
- criddell 10y agoIt's political in Canada too.
- nkoren 10y agoI don't disagree with you as far as the effectiveness of polemic; more the ethics of it. Built on a rational/empirical foundation, a good polemic can engage hit people in both the guts and the brain. That's fine. But absent such a foundation, a polemic is just empty posturing. It might win, but to what end? And if we accept this as a legitimate way of arguing policy, then how what right to we have to object when others use the same tactic against us? I recognise that all over the world -- and especially in America -- the political sphere is increasingly dominated by people engaging in polemical arguments that consider facts to be essentially irrelevant. And yes, this is working for them. But if we stoop to that level, the contagion only spreads, and politics devolves into nothing more than tribal hooting at one another. Which is usually the last step before civil war. So we need to be better than that.
- criddell 10y agoThe ethics are complex. If the use of polemic speech spurs action on climate change, you are potentially avoiding (or mitigating) catastrophes. Sometimes the end justifies the means.
- ptero 10y agoYou make very good points. I do not know if this is just me, but such articles seem to corner themselves by arguing (or supporting an argument) that: 1. We need high crop yields to feed current population 2. Pesticides are bad 3. We need crops that can give high yields organically 4. Genetic engineering might help (often implicitly acknowledged) 5. GMO is worse than bad 6. Go back to (1) There are different honest ways to open this loop (e.g., accept GMOs), but any time I see this I assume that the goal is politics, not science and stop reading.
- jeromenerf 10y ago> Pesticides are bad. "Thou shalt not -cide" is quite an ancient commandment :) Seriously, of course they are "bad", it's written on the package. I am all for more research but there is no controversy as to "are pesticides bad?" and our next collective move isn't scientific, it's political.