> I think we might be talking past one another. When I think of the
> romanticization of something, I think of the tendency to emphasize the
> mystery and power of nature and attribute redemptive qualities to nature.
> IT's redemptive because, via civilization we have "fallen"; nature takes the
> place of god as our redeemer. That is what the Romantics tended to think.
Ok, this begins to make more sense. Capitalization counts....
> I think that it can easily be said of Pollan that he thinks that industry,
> as it is presently organized, is the "antithesis" of the "logic of nature."
> His prescription, as you know, is that our food industry should, in fact,
> operate more as nature does. And, in turn, he writes about the ways that we
> make sense of the world through science as failing us because of the way
> science "assigns values and priorities."
Keep in mind that the "logic of nature", or similar, has been used as inspiration for industrial ecology, which deals with systems less intimate with biology that our food:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Ecology>
Industrial Ecology (IE) is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on the sustainable combination of environment, economy and technology. The central idea is the analogy between natural and socio-technical systems. The word 'industrial' does not only refer to industrial complexes but more generally to how humans use natural resources in the production of goods and services. Ecology refers to the concept that our industrial systems should incorporate principles exhibited within natural ecosystems.
[...]
Industrial ecology was popularized in 1989 in a Scientific American article by Robert Frosch and Nicholas E. Gallopoulos. Frosch and Gallopoulos' vision was "why would not our industrial system behave like an ecosystem, where the wastes of a species may be resource to another species? Why would not the outputs of an industry be the inputs of another, thus reducing use of raw materials, pollution, and saving on waste treatment?"[2] A notable example resides in a Danish industrial park in the city of Kalundborg. Here several linkages of byproducts and waste heat can be found between numerous entities such as a large power plant, an oil refinery, a pharmaceutical plant, a plasterboard factory, an enzyme manufacturer, a waste company and the city itself.[3]
[end cite]
Part of the reasoning stems from the observation that ecosystems essentially waste nothing, at least on a sub-geological time scale. This is particularly true for late-succession ("climax") ecosystems, which have the potential for equilibrium -- think of a longstanding redwood forest, as opposed to the scrub that takes over an abandoned field, which is then replaced with pioneer trees, and so on. One might even call them sustainable. The extreme opposite might be a petri dish culture that has begun to poison itself, and (simplifying a bit) the idea is to incorporate the logic of that millennia-old forest to avoid the fate of the petri dish. And hey, why not? The application to Polyface farm should be pretty clear, at least in the book (the web excerpts miss a lot of technical details).
> Nature never practices monoculturism. As such, the human practice of raising
> our food in monocultures is the "antithesis" of nature's polyculturalism. It
> isn't just opposite, no. It is the antithesis because it is opposed to and
> destructive of nature's way of "always" practicing diversity.
This is pretty much in line with what I know of biology and ecology. You may have a single species dominating a particular niche in an ecosystem, but a big plot years of one species for years and nothing else -- not even insects -- just doesn't happen.
----------------
I took a long break here, and was planning on continuing in a similar vein, showing how Pollan could get where he goes by rational means. But it dawned on me that that might be beside your point: whatever Pollan's reasoning, his summaries still echo the themes of Romanticism. I see how you think that, though I'm uncomfortable with the device, as I'll explain. I'll continue with this if you think it's useful.
-- Andy