US SC sides with Bayer
Rosamma Thomas
Many eco-farmers will disagree. It’s actually only great news for Bayer. But we need to remember that no court ruling or government regulation is forcing any farmer to use glyphosate or any other chemical. The best way forward is for eco-farmers to develop, demonstrate, and promote soil-building organic systems that work without glyphosate.
Bayer’s motto is “Health for all, Hunger for none.” It’s up to eco-ag to prove that we can reach that goal without glyphosate or any of Bayer’s other products.
Ashwani Vasishth
Rosamma, I know it can be done, because dear friends do this in South India (Karnataka--Kracadawna Farms). They, as a family, have being doing this for almost half a century. They started out with biodynamic farming and continue down that non-chemical farming path successfully today.
But I would say that--like almost every Appropriate Technology--these alternatives are labour intensive and time consuming practices. My friends really are at work at the crack of dawn. And they work their butts off.
We CAN live without Monsanto-like chemicals. We have before. It's just a lot more work, takes way more time and effort, and has a lower cash return. The "Green Revolution" was really a dramatic revolution, and it allowed outputs to surge, helping change the face of famine in the South. But at a huge cultural and ecological cost.
THAT's the tradeoff--labour and work and monetary return versus Proper Action. As long as we practice single-bottom line thinking and look to reduce physical effort, the Monsantos' of this world will surge ahead. Count on it.
The Cariappas' have spent decades trying to persuade their neighboring farms to back away from export-oriented mono-culture and herbicide- and fertilizer-intensive farming. Its not just the relative minority of our "capitalistic" leaders that put profit over doing the right thing. The vast majority of humans do the same. Its less Capitalism, per se, and more that we have allowed money to have an increasingly loud voice.
I worked on Appropriate Technology (AT) in the 1970s in India. The Indian Government had established a chain of National AT Centres across the country, researching alternative building materials, smokeless stoves, biogas (methane) digesters for sewage and organic waste, flushless (composting).toilets A wide variety of such non-industrial, non-hi tech, non-Modern, low cost strategies.
I visited a number of these Centres, and collected a lot of publications and advocated for them intensively.
These were all really good ideas--using clay, with additives like sodium silicate, to make the clay stronger and more like concrete, composting toilets, all these things that current generations see as "novel alternatives"--we've been there before. They never took hold. Everybody wanted "modern" technologies--LNG Stoves, and refrigerators and sewage systems and running water.
And why not? Bollywood showed them that this was how "modern people" lived. Why would we ask they look the other way?
I encountered the Whole Earth Catalog in 1973 at a pavement book seller in Delhi, when I had started studying Architecture. I met Buckminster Fuller (geodesic domes and dymaxion thinking) at about the same time.
in Delhi, I focused of self-help housing, and rebuilding squatter settlements, and Vernacular Architecture. How local, vernacular building practices were more appropriate than imported "Western Architecture." We worked on this for a decade, showing that the way traditional buildings were assembled in Himachal Pradesh was best suited to that place, and the way folks built in Kerala was better for that place, and the way indigenous people built in cyclone prone Andhra Pradesh was in fact better for that place. And on, and on.
But Western "modern" brick and concrete won the day. Everywhere.
EF Schumacher's Small is Beautiful was just out, and we bought the argument. Very much in the same vein as the Gandhian notions of Village Economies (Gram Swaraj) and Self-Rule (Swadesh) and Swayam Seva (Self Service) and so on.
Ashish knows this well. He understands the Gandhian principles of subsidiarity and localism and place-based decision making. That is a part of the answer. But there is no Stopping Rule.
Their Pluriverse work understands this--working with Wicked Problems means that there is never a "one optimum end-point solution." No point at which we can say QED, "we've solved this one. On to the next."
So I have a deep history of wrestling with change-making. What I've learned is not from any armchair.
The US was almost precisely where we are today, with MAGA World, in the 1920s, when the Ku Klux Klan controlled whole State Governments. There's nothing new about White Supremacy and racism.
My point is, we act under a Recency Bias. "New" ideas surely must better than "old" ideas, because we know they did not "do the trick". What if that is our error? No terminating solutions. What if the struggle, the process of resistance, that is all we have.
Forget our dreams of Utopia and our dread of Dystopia. Let's revist Kevin Kelly's Protopian approach. Incremental change.
--
Ashwani
Vasishth (he, him) vasi...@ramapo.edu (323) 206-1858 (cell)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Sustainability (RETIRED)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8272006/
Co-founder and Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City
http://www.sustainablejc.org
Board of Trustees, New Jersey Highlands Coalition
http://njhighlandscoalition.orgMany eco-farmers will disagree. It’s actually only great news for Bayer. But we need to remember that no court ruling or government regulation is forcing any farmer to use glyphosate or any other chemical. The best way forward is for eco-farmers to develop, demonstrate, and promote soil-building organic systems that work without glyphosate.
Bayer’s motto is “Health for all, Hunger for none.” It’s up to eco-ag to prove that we can reach that goal without glyphosate or any of Bayer’s other products.
--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAAuCJ0Qu%3DdDzJ3M%2Bf-2e1xc4SX10vNjBrBhEa1Xun1MDy2Y_UA%40mail.gmail.com.
Tom Abeles
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/8351169a-9792-43c0-8a7e-e2a90ef2061c%40ramapo.edu.
Vasishth, Ashwani
Ashwani
Vasishth (he/him)
Professor of Sustainability (Retired)
vasi...@ramapo.edu
(323) 206-1858 (cell)
http://linkedin.com/in/vasishth
Founding Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City (SJC)
sustainablejc.org
Board of Trustees
NJ Highlands Coalition (NJHC)
njhighlandscoalition.org
Tom Abeles
Tom Abeles
Uma Shankari Naren
Ashwani Vasishth
I agree, Uma. Except, you say
there has been no 'no-stopping' rule
Actually, that characteristic (of The 10 Characteristics of Wicked Problems) reads:
There can be no stopping rule.
Excerpted by Ashwani Vasishth, from:
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
[Do keep in mind, this is from 1973, and in the particular context of urban and regional planning. The words need tweaking, today, but I argue that these are pointing toward ideas of Complex Socio-Ecological Systems (SES), deriving from CS Holling’s meme of Adaptive Change and his separation of mechanics resilience and ecological resilience.
Both begin with a root assumption that no one observer can cognate the whole of occurring reality—each of us can only see fragments of complex reality, and must synthesize across perspective, purpose and presentation. Hence the need for participatory stakeholder problem depiction.
Rittel and Webber’s use of the word “Problems” is problematic for me as well, because in popular understanding, “problems” are usually linked with “solutions.” My argument is, we can make a difference, affect the future, but the "problem does not sit still". It evolves. If we agree that there is no one way to depict a Wicked Problem, then we can never terminally "solve" Wicked Problem—because reality consistently responds to our actions (and in-actions). This is called Evolution.
I add to this the realization that while “what is” does affect “what can be”, but our interventions into the present—individually and collectively—do affect the actually occurable future.
Otto Scharmer proposed, in his Theory U, argued your future cannot happen until you actually get there.
And finally, our notions of what “the problem” is, must at least be be revisited each time we intervene, because the future is likely to be responsive to our interventions. Hence the imperative to use Adaptive Approach to project management.]
According to Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 characteristics:
1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Formulating the problem and the solution is essentially the same task. Each attempt at creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since you can't define the problem in any single way, it's difficult to tell when it's resolved. The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted, stakeholders lose interest or political realities change.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good enough" can be a challenge, but getting to a good enough resolution may be the best we can do.
4. There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Since there is no singular description of a wicked problem, and since the very act of intervention has at least the potential to change that which we deem to be the problem, there is no one way to test the success of the proposed resolution.
5. Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences. Solutions to such problems generate waves of consequences, and it's impossible to know, in advance and completely, how these waves will eventually play out.
6. Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable solutions. It's a matter of judgment as to when enough potential solutions have emerged and which should be pursued.
7. Each wicked problem is essentially unique. There are no "classes" of solutions that can be applied, a priori, to a specific case. "Part of the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too early what type of solution to apply."
8. Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that change over time, embedded in a dynamic social context. But, more importantly, each proposed resolution of a particular description of a problem should be expected to generate its own set of unique problems. If you think you’ve “solved” a wicked problem,” be sure at least ONE new Wicked Problem has been created.
9. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. There are many stakeholders who will have various and changing ideas about what might be a problem, what might be causing it and how to resolve it. There is no way to sort these different explanations into sets of correct/incorrect. We MUST learn to handle multiple causal explanations.
10. The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. Scientists are expected to formulate hypotheses, which may or may not be supportable by evidence. Designers don't have such a luxury—they’re expected to get things right. People get hurt, when planners are wrong. Rather, there is no ONE “right” answer.
--
Ashwani
Vasishth vasi...@ramapo.edu (323) 206-1858 (Cell Phone)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Sustainability (Retired)
Founding Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City (SJC)
Trustee, New Jersey Highlands Coalition (NJHC)
You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week,
at: calendly.com/vasishth/google-meet-30Ashwani Vasishth
What was meant in the 1970s qnd 1980s when we said appropriate technology may be less valid today than then. But over a billion people people still live in dire need. Smokeless stoves and biogas digesters--in whatever enhanced form-- still save lives.
I agree the times have moved. A LOT. But the meaning of appropriate technology still endures.
I use AI regularly, to ask things I do not fully know and have not time to take a Grad Class in. I have a high salt diet, but AI gives me guardrails to build upon.
One possible update to the now dated label Appropriate Technology (From Google AI), is perhaps:
I asked for alternative practices to the Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) society and aligned with the concept of the Pluriverse
When framed as alternative practices to the Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) society and aligned with the concept of the Pluriverse (a world where many worlds fit), appropriate technology shifts from a mere "poverty-alleviation tool" into a radical project of technological sovereignty, decoloniality, and ontic pluralism.In the Pluriverse, as articulated by scholars like Arturo Escobar and networks like the Global Tapestry of Alternatives, technology is not a universal, linear path of progress dictated by global capitalism. Instead, it is an expression of localized ways of being, knowing, and relating to the Earth.The Pluriversal Definition of Appropriate Technology
Today, a robust, pluriversal definition of appropriate technology is "Cosmolocal, relational, and autonomous technologies that regenerate local ecosystems, protect cultural heritage, and resist the homogenizing forces of global industrial capitalism."Under this lens, technology must fulfill three deeper socio-ecological criteria:
- Relationality: It honors the interconnectedness of human and non-human life, treating nature as a subject rather than a resource to extract.
- Autonomy: It strengthens a community’s capacity for self-governance, reducing dependence on global corporate supply chains.
- Cosmolocalization: It combines global, open-source digital knowledge (what is light travels globally) with physical, localized production (what is heavy stays locally).
Key Examples of Pluriversal Technological Practices
The following practices reject the MTI model of "one size fits all" development, offering instead a tapestry of localized, high-utility alternatives:1. Autonomous Digital Networks & Indigenous Telecoms
Rather than relying on multinational telecom monopolies that extract data and capital, pluriversal technology focuses on community-owned communications infrastructure.
- Rhizomatica (Oaxaca, Mexico): This project helps indigenous communities build and manage their own GSM cell phone networks. It uses open-source software and local governance models, ensuring communication is a community right rather than a corporate commodity.
- Community Mesh Networks: Decentralized Wi-Fi networks (like NYC Mesh or Guifi.net) use low-cost, off-the-shelf routers flashed with open software. They are built, owned, and maintained by neighbors to provide autonomous internet access.
2. Agroecology and Ancestral Agricultural Systems
MTI agriculture relies on chemical inputs, heavy machinery, and patented GMO seeds. Pluriversal alternatives treat agriculture as a technological system that integrates ancestral knowledge with modern ecological science.
- The Milpa System (Mesoamerica): A polyculture technology mixing maize, beans, and squash. It optimizes nitrogen fixation, controls pests naturally, and sustains soil health without synthetic fertilizers.
- Chinamapas (Mexico): An ancient, highly efficient lacustrine agricultural technology using artificial islands. It remains one of the most sustainable, high-yield food production systems in urban and peri-urban environments.
- Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI): A digital/legal framework that keeps crop genetics in the public domain, directly countering corporate seed patents and preserving agricultural biodiversity.
3. Vernacular Architecture and Bioregional Building
Modern construction relies on energy-intensive concrete and steel, which homogenize landscapes globally. Vernacular technologies use hyper-local materials tailored to regional climates.
- Bahareque and Adobe Construction: Low-carbon, earthquake-resistant building techniques using earth, straw, and bamboo. Organizations like the Cal-Earth Institute adapt these into "Superadobe" structures, proving that ancestral techniques can meet modern structural needs.
- Passive Nubian Vaults: A technique reintroduced in Africa’s Sahel region to build durable timberless roofs using local mud bricks, bypassing the need for expensive, imported timber and corrugated iron.
4. Relational Energy Systems and Micro-Commons
Instead of massive, centralized grids powered by fossil fuels or mega-scale green energy projects that displace local communities, pluriversal energy focuses on community-scale generation.
- Community-Managed Micro-Hydro: Small, run-of-the-river turbines that generate electricity for isolated villages without requiring massive dams or ecological destruction. The technology is maintained, repaired, and governed through local assembly models.
- Open-Source Wind Turbines: Designs like the Hugh Piggott wind turbine are deliberately engineered to be built out of scrap metal, wood, and basic car parts, ensuring any local mechanic can repair the system.
5. Restorative Sanitation (EcoSan)
Industrial society treats human waste as a pollution problem requiring massive chemical treatment plants. Pluriversal technology views it relationally, closing the nutrient loop.
- Composting Toilets and Arborloos: Low-cost sanitation systems that safely isolate human waste and transform it into fertile soil amendment, eliminating the need for water-flushed systems and protecting local water tables.
MTI Society vs. The Pluriverse
Dimension Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) Technology Pluriversal / Appropriate Technology Scale Global, mass-produced, centralized Local, decentralized, cosmolocal Goal Capital accumulation, efficiency, control Autonomy, ecological balance, well-being (Buen Vivir) Knowledge Monoculture of expert/scientific knowledge Ecology of knowledges (scientific + indigenous) Nature An object to be mastered and exploited A relational subject to be co-existed with
--
Ashwani
Vasishth vasi...@ramapo.edu (323) 206-1858 (Cell Phone)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vasishth/
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Sustainability (Retired)
Founding Advisor, Sustainable Jersey City (SJC)
Trustee, New Jersey Highlands Coalition (NJHC)
You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week,
at: calendly.com/vasishth/google-meet-30