Le Potager du Sloth: Gardening without fatigue more than Bio

[Did67]

Can one put on the same level the voluntary exposure to a toxic substance to an imposed exposure? There is still a nuance of size, if only because it is always possible to give up the first ...

The fact remains that "voluntarism" refers to presupposed virtues, virtues that the "volunteer" did not invent, but accepted (of a science or of its "popularizers"). These are "allegations" he was bathed in. I was thinking about influence or "influencers". Not to the "volunteer" ...

Moreover, my reflection was intended as a "warning" against these influences, which we undergo in other forms ... At the end of science, where it stops, there is always a "belief" , or a conviction ...

[Did67]

but digging by hand around the damage, you find - or not - the gallery that brings the rat-taupier; its size leaves no doubt ...

That is, what is the size of a gallery?

That of a gallery of taupe: 2 to 3 fingers ...

[Did67]

I also have a book dating from 1925 "Culture potagère" by J Vercier, numerous reissues, which presents these radioactive fertilizers which apparently were in the trade (!) And which were to "activate the elements" fertilizers provided elsewhere in the soil. We would have seen "a fuller and darker foliage" of the treated plants with an increased harvest !! The author warns all the same on the measured dosage which must be applied by saying that the action can last "two years at least" !!!!!

This is the same one that I just acquired, at random from a stand of old books at the Book Fair of Couternon, where I was present.

[Did67]

You speak of the "relativity" of science, I suppose by these cryptic parentheses that you mean the perception of science by public opinion?

Yes indeed.

And its effects on the "single thought" tending to become sovereign at a given moment ...

And therefore also, indirectly, the risk that an extension of scientific data, incomplete at a given moment, lead to such effects ...

And consequently to the necessary prudence that one should show when one expresses oneself - even if I also forget it in general (so the reflection that I share is also addressed, and first of all, to me!).

[Did67]

You write:

Out of ethics, and "decency," I wouldn't go out and protest glyphosate if I smoked a pack a day. Just so as not to be publicly ridiculous!

We must not reason only in terms of harmfulness: a glyphosate and what it assumes in the relations between large firms and farmers (not to mention consumers!) Could be perfectly harmless in terms of health it does not would remain no less worrying on a political level (what is not the tobacco considered in terms of individual choice, even if this choice is not so free as it seems).

I agree. If I put forward the harmfulness, it is that it is the argument royal (even if it is not unique) put forward by the opponents.

If we attack "relations between large firms and farmers", then it was necessary to go much further than glyphosate, which would be nothing more than a fetish, an "epiphenomenon". Or say it then ...

Finally, the questioning would apply even more, in my opinion, to tobacco: how would the relationship between big tobacco companies and consumers be healthier ??? I do not see. Same mechanism of making the most profit regardless of the price that does not pay part of the population (producers and consumers in the case of glyphosate, consumers in the case of tobacco).

I do not understand the downside at the end (parenthesis).

[to be chafoin]

The difference comes from the fact that we suffer the effects of pesticides which are dispersed "massively" in the environment, without having "chosen" to buy them since it is the farmers who do that. It's a bit like passive smoking, although you can get away from a smoker more or less ...

[Did67]

Yes, you can see it like that. But from the point of "capitalistic mechanics" (selling with maximum profits even if it is harmful), it is very similar ...

And then, "unbeknownst to our own free will", we buy the products of this agriculture. Without this, they would not have been produced for a long time. Is it also "suffered"?

[Ahmed]

My flat was to nuance my purpose in your sense. The tobacco industry, at least in some countries, is no longer free to exert as much pressure as in the past, but the inertia of behavior still gives it a bright future (especially among women who have come more late and will probably stop with a big shift). On the other hand, the spring of tobacco like that of other toxic substances or suicide are self-destructive reactions that are conscious but persistent in a psychologically unfavorable context of generalized destabilization; the mortifying nature of the functioning of society can not fail to affect its members.

[Ahmed]

Did, you write:

Yes, you can see it like that. But from the point of "capitalistic mechanics" (selling with maximum profits even if it is harmful), it is very similar ...

Why focus on one point that is common to all commodities? Better to consider what differs ...
And,

"without knowing it of our own free will", we buy the products of this agriculture. Without this, they would not have been produced for a long time. Is it also "suffered"?

The freedom of purchase is conditioned by knowledge, habits, advertising and above all economic contingencies that obviously divide consumers.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

You speak of the "relativity" of science, I suppose by these cryptic parentheses that you mean the perception of science by public opinion?

Yes indeed.

And its effects on the "single thought" tending to become sovereign at a given moment ...

And therefore also, indirectly, the risk that an extension of scientific data, incomplete at a given moment, lead to such effects ...

And consequently to the necessary prudence that one should show when one expresses oneself - even if I also forget it in general (so the reflection that I share is also addressed, and first of all, to me!).

I also wonder if, to the point where we arrived, lobbies, experts bought (or paid) in all the camps, lobbies for and lobbies against ... if we did not go beyond the point of the CERTAINTY. .. and be lost forever.

It may also be a conscious strategy: the drowning of populations through scientific information or popularization all over the place.