The energy challenge

[Janic]

pierre Yves hello

even if Janic accused me, from the outset at the start of the discussion, of being "sponsored by the manufacturers of chemical inputs".

As long as to quote as long as it is complete: "
Janic wrote:
A fabric of absurdities and untruths PROBABLY sponsored by the manufacturers of chemical inputs.
Christophe can testify to the attempts of a few to disturb the sweet atmosphere of this site.

This is why I suggested, a little further on, to see in PM what are the particular points which give this impression of a probability, rather than arguing on this subject. In the same way the expression "sponsored" (ah! The subtleties of the French language! But reading your prose had somewhat "warmed my ears") does not mean earning large fees to disseminate untruths, but that your convictions are closer to Monsanto * than to anti-GMO ecology, which among ecologists is a highly sensitive point, at least as much as nuclear.

However, Janic's turnaround is interesting to observe.

If you had the patience to read my 3264 interventions, to date, you could see that I defend my shop with consistency (even if some people find it difficult to follow the meanders of my reflections)

* Take off your Monsanto mask, we recognized you!

[Did67]

I understand from this text that, in your opinion, the experts are not experts - with a few rare exceptions. That only "field agronomists" know anything. I'm not even asking you how many "field agronomists" who adopted this famous definition, or in what way they were representative in this area.


It's a bit contradictory; but above all, the problem is that you do not say how we sort out the experts: between those who know nothing about it, and those who have phenomenal knowledge. Do you have to be more expert than the experts to sort the experts? According to what knowledge can you, you, distribute the good and the bad points?
For my part, I am not an agronomist in the field. But I'm still trying to find out. For this, I do not address Pierre, Paul, or Jacques. I am not speaking to a particular expert, was he Marc Dufumier, who is an educated man with phenomenal experience.

What I can confirm from having experienced it is that in the "things" in particular, there are "experts" who bear this name, but whose expertise is no doubt reduced to knowing how to sneak politically. ..

I saw there (discussed with ...) people of monumental incompetence.

But not only !!! I agree with that.

Hence, in any case, my mistrust vis-à-vis the "reports" issued by these "things", which are in general, just the consensus of mediocrity, the common denominator of received ideas ...

It is a personal opinion. I suspect that it is not shared. I claim the right to express it. I do not pretend to be right ... To each his own opinion.

But more generally, in fact, the debate we have here poses the question of expertise, and more generally, that of the value of studies ... and even meta-studies ...

It's a real subject. A monumental subject! Suffice to say right away: I do not have the final answer. Not even a conviction completely and definitively stopped.

And as if by chance, on complex subjects (agronomy, health, cancer, AIDS, etc ...), there are generally radically opposed conclusions between experts who compete.

So basically, everyone arrives at the conclusions they want (those that match their convictions) and "find" the experts who suit them, denying others their expertise ... And, consequently, the debates are endless!

We act as if the experts were, by definition, "neutral" and "objective" (which is not already all scientists!) ...

I am quoting Dufumier not to make him an icon. Just to remind you that he defends the idea that, on the contrary, agroecology makes it possible to feed more people than the conventional. And that in his own way, he "demonstrates" it ... And having met him in the field and spent a fascinating evening with him, I can only testify that he "analyzed" (not just observed, and again less tackled his fantasies on ...) agrarian systems in different parts of the globe ... It is one of the "experts" who brought me something. Where others have bored me (or even made me laugh quietly).

We can set aside his opinion on the grounds that the FAO ...

But there are plenty of "experts", whose names I don't know by heart.

The people who work on the Ferme du Bec-Hellouin, which has been analyzed by INRA, with surprising "performances" ... This is another example ...

Finally, without convincing of course, I observe that the "innovators" are always in the minority, until their "discoveries" are imposed ... or disappear ... They pass through "meta-studies" . By definition.

Even Einstein was not right right away with his E = mC². At the latest since Hiroshima, we know he was right ...

[Janic]

DID 67 hello
completely agree with your analysis! and particularly this passage: "And as if by chance, on complex subjects (agronomy, health, cancer, AIDS, etc ...), there are generally radically opposed conclusions between experts who compete.
And so basically, everyone arrives at the conclusions they want (those that meet their convictions) and "finds" the experts who suit him, denying others their expertise ... And, therefore, the debates are endless!
We act as if the experts were, by definition, "neutral" and "objective" (which is not already all scientists!) ... experts themselves supposed to be scientists! Hence the expression "defend your shop"

[Did67]

Nice climb and beautiful passing shot. Well done.

30-0! Janic service!

[NB: we have rarely agreed as much! Strange !!!]

There would be a whole field of reflections to dig there.

If I still share convictions - not certainties:

a) with age, I have come to the conclusion that a "technique", an "invention" is ...

She is bar.

It is what men do with it that makes it become "good" or "bad", "useful" or "harmful" ...

And this since the invention of the powder, some of which have made rifles to feed better, to hunt more efficiently ...

Others, war, dominate, assuage and conquer territories to impose their view / their system (necessarily, from their point of view, better!)

Ditto for metals: more efficient tools AND more efficient weapons (up to the big Bertha not so long ago).

I mentioned E = mC². We made it the most terrifying weapon. And the most abundant energy (even if I'm not a fan!).

IT could be used: decoding the genome with interesting medical perspectives, the information society, or "generalized espionage NSA style" or sometimes intrusive or even liberticidal empires Microsoft / Google / Facebook ...

2) Therefore, the expert is the one who should "judge" these techniques. And we immediately see that it becomes complicated ... That it brings us back to values. Has ethics ...

Conformist experts or "open" experts. Independent experts or "sold" experts. Humble experts or experts in search of their glory, to be on TV, to be published, to sell a book ...

You can quickly see that the experts are ... men. Neither more. No less.

3) Unfortunately, we too often confuse the "tangible" data ("today, the sky, at home, at the moment t is 90% cloudy" - it is a fact) and the conclusions a lot more subjective than one draws from it ("it will rain"! - I would like it, for my garden!).

[Ahmed]

I find your judgment concerning experts of all stripes very relevant, Did, especially with the nuances that you formulate.
This is why, I repeat, the quarrels of experts are definitely of no interest to me.

There is a more fundamental reason which invites reservations with regard to the experts and you mention it too succinctly:

2) Therefore, the expert is the one who should "judge" these techniques. And we immediately see that it becomes complicated ... That it brings us back to values. Has ethics ...

Indeed, if we assume the competent expert, we must ask the question of in what context deploys his technical competence and in which it is only valid: it is his function and he is paid for it. If the objectives sought are changed, the parameters chosen, as well as the conclusions, immediately become obsolete. By pretending that the present factors are objective and anhistoric, it is not possible to find other considerations than those present in the initial premises; in short, it is not possible to get out of a closed system.

Technology can never tell us what life we ​​want to live and it is never neutral, contrary to its claim.

[Did67]

Eh yes. And in general, the "domain of validity" of the hypotheses is cleverly hidden! What every good mathematician does.

Thus, by definition, the square of a number is positive, until a huluberlu poses: "let us take i such that i² = -1"

And he invents imaginary numbers.

He is no more right. Or more wrong. And he invents a universe ...

Mathematicians know how to do it.

In the other sciences, in particular the human or biological sciences, the answer will be: "you don't think about it, it's not possible!" ...

I take the example of my garden. Of which I find that it is an extremely powerful system question "quantity of vegetables produced" compared to the work which I put there ...

On another forum, I came across a lambda who wrote to me: "Me, my garden, I need to work there for 30 minutes every day when I get home". Is he more expert than me ??? Is he right ?

Yes, at home, he is right, because his garden is his free gym, outdoors, and she is productive in vegetables in addition!

For my part, prospect of a meager retirement. Love of the garden. Fancy untreated vegetables. 50 ares of land. Physically very diminished. And many other things to do: I want to produce a maximum with the minimum of work. So at home, I'm right.

We are both right!

But if we do not put all the elements ("the framework" of our reflection), we could "fight" for a long time!

[Janic]

did 67

[NB: we have rarely agreed as much! Strange !!!]

Nothing strange! We can share an opinion at 90% and be against at 10% and it is generally these 10% that allow the exchange of contradictory points of view and that is what advances the schmilblick.

[Did67]

To support a little what I said above about the "organic dogma", which I think has a "religious" dimension (we believe it or we don't believe it, but we don't demonstrate) [we uses only natural products, "reputed" or "accepted" as being safe):

a) rotenone, extracted from various tropical plants, has long been used as an approved "organic" insecticide

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rot%C3%A9none

b) before it was discovered that it had a broad spectrum, and was therefore also "harmful" to many auxiliaries, and in particular had a high toxicity to aquatic animals ... [sometimes more than products synthetic, more "targeted", so hello puddles, frogs, newts, etc ...]

http://www.gerbeaud.com/jardin/fiches/f ... iques.php3

c) to finally discover that it could be the cause of Parkinson's disease, by acting on the mitochondria:

http://www.agriculture-environnement.fr ... kinson,719

And therefore ban it. At least in Europe.

http://www.fnab.org/index.php/nos-actio ... e-au-point


Far from me the idea of ​​peddling any amalgam, like the "organic" is crap.

Just to back up my thought that "organic" (even when there is no fraud) is not "100% pure white" ...

And so try to explain why I dare to say that my vegetables without any pesticides or fertilizers, are themselves "more than organic". Which is not whiter than white, but whiter than gray.

Without even going into the field of energy efficiency, carbon footprint, contribution to the depletion of natural resources (phosphate or potassium fertilizers) (even if this may be less than conventional agriculture, especially for nitrogen - therefore more light gray]. On all these points, all is not rosy [to change the color a little!]. But if we look at our "footprint" and the "sustainability" of what we do on the earth, we must also look at these points.

I might be shocked, but "organic" is already, in my opinion, in some aspects, an outdated model as a model of the future, even if it is far from generalized [which would be progress ].

[It's a bit like finding that current cars have made enormous progress in terms of emissions, before adding that they still continue to pollute and consume oil].

[Did67]

And one last ???

Lire: http://alerte-environnement.fr/2015/04/ ... esticides/

Or this one: http://abiodoc.docressources.fr/opac/do ... num_id=345 (the "hat" formulates reservations which clearly show that it is not all white ...)

[I repeat: it is nevertheless less worse, but not white! And marketing is the most debatable thing !!! And especially for apples, when I buy them, I preferably eat organic - when I no longer have the twisted, crooked, misshapen ones picked up in natural meadows where people let them rot, so "more than organic "]

[Janic]

Still disagree with your formulation which is too global. Indeed there are, at least, two BIOs; that established by its pioneers and therefore very demanding on the quality of the final product without toxicity or damage by the consumer and the environment, these famous extremists in the eyes of some.
The formalization of AB has, I repeat, lowered the requirements for quality and safety. Now you regularly mention the second and not the first.
However, this formalization allowed farmers to take a step, which they probably would not have done given the level of requirement of the pioneers. The question, then, is what is the worst situation? Indeed when people have a garden and it becomes the prey of parasites and they harvest nothing, they can always go to the organic market or not around. For the farmer it is his livelihood that depends on it and he can estimate that an insecticide, said to be natural, is less dangerous than a synthetic insecticide on a crop, on the responsibility of finding a less toxic solution for the following crops . To avoid this kind of situation (which can be consecutive to the effects of persistence of soil previously cultivated in chemistry), the AB, before its officialization in gray, required 5 years of transition, without sale in organic sector and with control on the persistence always possible and therefore always prohibiting sales in organic sectors. So you had to believe it hard as iron.
Remember the organic farmer who refuses to chemically treat his vines and to whom a trial was made and whom he lost compared to the administration (in fact won in the eyes of other agrobio and defenders of organic)
So your confusion (or at least not making a distinction,) it's like (because I also have a theological string to my bow) comparing Christianity, white with white, of the Gospels with gray - black of official Catholicism , Buddhism with the teaching of the Buddha or Marxism in a communist way with the philosophy of Marx. Nothing to do with their origins, but it is the origin that is authentic, not what it has become over time.