 |
|
     |
|
|
Sustainable agriculture Thank you for the skillful Q&A with Miguel Altieri (June) about world agriculture, hunger, and nutrition, and the related politics of global economics and the independence of scientific research. It’s very rare that mainstream journalism ever comes within hailing distance of these important issues. The problem is that “science” today, as Professor Altieri succinctly and candidly notes, must stand within quotes, because it’s mostly private information, not an advance of public knowledge. Biotech, for example, is no more science than is the Ford-Firestone debate over tire quality. Unfortunately, because “science” is hyped in our country by corporate advertisers as if it’s another salvation religion, few journalists stop to examine whether genetic engineering of food, for one example, or large-scale pesticide applications by factory farms, for another, make any sense from a comprehensive perspective such as that of Altieri. I appreciate your making such an examination. Richard Morris ’57, Boalt ’60 San Juan Bautista Miguel Altieri is quite correct that we have the resources to feed all of the world’s people. And his heart’s in the right place in sympathizing with the world’s poor. However, given a choice, most poor people would rather live affluently than remain peasants for generation after generation. It is one thing to be a well-fed peasant, another to receive adequate education and medical care, which peasants cannot afford. Altieri basically espouses the “keep them barefoot and pregnant” (and therefore happy) approach. Jeffrey Schaffer ’65, M.A. ’67, Ph.D. ’69 Napa While Miguel Altieri is to be commended for helping small farmers in Third World countries, disparaging modern agricultural practices, a long-popular sport among well-fed individuals (e.g., Prince Charles), is a separate issue. Before a nation (or individual) can achieve its potential, it first has to relegate the need for food to a minor role. Modern farming practices, including the use of agricultural chemicals, has done this in spades in the U.S. Would those who would have us revert to sustainable agriculture in the U.S. be willing to pay the inevitably higher prices (due to lower per acre yields) that such produce would cost? Concurrently with farm surpluses in the U.S., there is malnutrition in Third World countries. Redistribution of our bounty—a 21st-century Marshall Plan—is an idea that makes eminent sense. Why not implement such a program? Write your Congressman. Joe Traynor ’57 Bakersfield Associate professor Altieri continues to strike a chord that goes counter to the science culture of the College of Natural Resources at Berkeley. I have spent 30 years as a scientist in the College and have long since concluded that Altieri’s message is of utmost importance to food security of developing areas, where most of what we call modern agriculture has little relevance, for the reasons he articulates. Miguel’s indictment is larger: The University of California mostly does research for the rich, in which the quest for intellectual property rights to bits of nature’s genome and developing private-public ventures are well rewarded—research that in the future may require more for legal services than for field research. A few of us do research that has relevance to the poor, and in my travels around the world (mostly Africa) in these efforts I am often asked about Altieri. My answer is always the same: “His work is considerably more important than mine.” Andrew Paul Gutierrez Division of Ecosystem Science Berkeley Too high? Michael Stusser’s article in June (“High Noon”) described his experience with an organization devoted to alcohol (the “Before Noon Drinking Club”). While most college people admit their introduction to alcohol at that stage of their lives, for a professional writer like Stusser to be granted access to the nostalgic page of “Recalling Cal” with this asinine drinking story is disgusting. W. James Eldred ’45 Orinda Cover girl I took one look at the cover of the June issue and thought the hair and clothing styles were the ones my brother (Herbert Harvey Blakemore ’50) and I recognized as belonging to my mother’s class. Could that picture be of the Class of 1914? I examined the faces of all the ladies in the picture and had about given up, but then, way in the back row, half hidden behind another lady, I saw the broad brow, pince-nez glasses, and nose of a lady who is indeed my beloved mother, Margaretta Barret Harvey ’14. Winifred Maker Anderson Free speech and paid ads Daniel Hernandez’s apology for running, in the Daily Cal, the Horowitz ad against paying reparations to black Americans was indeed cowardly (“The ad, the apology, and the aftermath,” June). Just what is there to apologize for? The Horowitz ad expressed legitimate reasons for not paying reparations; rather than conducting a “Black Out” that disrupted classes, the black student body should have addressed the Horowitz issues in their own counter-ad. Karl Kettler, MBA ’66 Flemington, New Jersey I think Daniel Hernandez did a great job explaining what happened and his position. But I think he and his staff could have avoided nearly all of the controversy if they had done the following: 1) Accept the ad and print it, as they did. 2) Print on the front page of the paper, on the same day, two columns side by side, one presenting all the reasons there should be reparations for slavery, and the other presenting all the reasons against. 3) Place a small editorial next to the two columns stating the belief of the editor and the staff. If these things were done, then the students would get to read both sides and make up their own minds. Bill Gray ’47 Berkeley If the Daily Californian prefers not to offend people, well, own up to that. But don’t make a virtue of journalistic squeamishness. We contribute to our own freedom of speech by learning how to deal with speech we do not like. Turning the page of a newspaper is as easy as it gets. To expect free speech to serve only a “reasoned exchange of ideas” is to destroy it. Who will decide what is “reasoned”? After all, free speech does mean a sort of “free-for-all” of thoughts: yours, mine, and everyone else’s. John Neville ’67 Oakland Please have Daniel Hernandez send me copies of all issues of the Daily Cal which contain a “balanced, productive, and respectful treatment” of reparations for slavery, surely an issue of interest on the Berkeley campus. And what does he mean by a forum that is “accountable, principled, and decent”? How did the Horowitz ad violate these canons? He set out his principles in decent language and was willing to appear personally and be held accountable for them. Persons holding other views were free to respond. That is what “civilized debate” is all about, regardless of who starts the debate (or “picks a fight,” as Hernandez put it). What he really seems to be saying is that there are certain subjects that are off limits to debate because of their emotional content. But aren’t those the subjects most in need of debate, particularly in an open forum such as UC Berkeley? If you can’t discuss such subjects there, you won’t be able to discuss them anywhere, and we will all be at the mercy of the demagogues in the long run. Bruce Richardson, Boalt ’62 Watsonville I left Cal in 1976. The campus I remember and revere cultivated and respected diversity. It seemed a modern Athens—intellectual, hedonistic, eclectic, and inclusive. There was freedom to hear, test, debate, reject, or join all different views. Cal seemed to me a great model for a public university. It fiercely upheld First Amendment principles of free speech, as well as religious and lifestyle freedom, without establishing a central doctrine. Sadly, I graduated and attended UCLA law school, where students and faculty accepted only one dominant dogma, and alternatives were not tolerated. Yet more sadly, it appears that Cal has forgotten its past, joined the pack, and become more like everyone else. Cal now has its mind made up. Therefore, anyone who is different, “uncivilized,” “racist,” speaks “blatant propaganda,” or is “clearly picking a fight” may and should be excluded and silenced. What happened to the notions that truth can compete for itself among different ideas; that each person must decide what is right for himself or herself; and that a public university and its publications ought to present, not police, diverse and minority ideas? Ron Pierce ’76 Irvine Up with the Blue and Gold… Like Virginia Matzek (“My Cardinal sin,” June), I was raised to think “Stanford” was tantamount to a four-letter word. Still, when our middle child was looking at colleges, and Stanford and Cal popped up as possible choices, I thought it was only fair to show her both schools. Coming from 3,000 miles away, she kept marveling, “Cal doesn’t look like a state school.” (I assured her it wasn’t, not really.) On our tour of the campus on the Peninsula, she was strangely silent. Later, she called her father and said she could never go to a school that looked like a giant Taco Bell. Parenting is tough, but sometimes you know you’ve won one. Elizabeth Mehren ’68, M.A. ’69 Hingham, Massachusetts  Return to Top |
 Miguel Altieri
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2009 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
