http://humanfoodproject.com/please-pass-microbes/
The goal is to try to understand what might constitute a healthy microbiome in the gut. In the article the hunters kill an Impala and then "wash" their hands in the stomach juices of the animal and then eat the stomach without cooking it. Also the intestines of the creature are cleaned, lightly cooked and then eaten. From a modern perspective it appears that every effort is being made to share the microbiome of the Impala. Evolution is the reason that this behavior is thought to give insight into the bacteria that are important for health.
Organic agriculture has a similar story. Bacteria digest dead plant material and become food for protists that are food for nematodes that are food for fungi and microarthropods and earthworms. The excretions of earthworms and microarthropods are the food for plants. The food web of the soil is an enormously complex system that has evolved over millions of years and the goal of organic agriculture is to exploit this food web to raise crops staying always on the "right" side of evolution. By contrast chemical farming identifies the 17 different growth limiting chemicals for plants and attempts to supply them to crops directly. Of course weeds also grow better with these chemicals and so one needs herbicides to kill the weeds. But the herbicides kill the crops unless the crops are genetically engineered to resist the herbicide. The chain of unintended consequences leads to growing engineered crops with the *hope* that weeds will not evolve with a resistance to the herbicide. Of course weeds do evolve with a resistance to the herbicide and the whole process of industrial agriculture begins to look like a fool's errand.
It is not exactly science, but a faith in the effectiveness of biological evolution is the foundation for organic agriculture and also a source of skepticism regarding the chemical interventions of modern science. Soil biology and human biology are too complex to expect a complete scientific understanding and so, as was pointed out, we will not anytime soon be able to believe a scientist who reassures us about the safety of some particular chemical intervention. In the meantime it does not look as though the mixture of capitalism and agriculture will be able to resist any inovations that promise a short term increase in yield or even the ostensibly simpler management of pests. On the other hand there is a small but growing contingent of farmers who pasture their livestock, grow crops organically, raise bees free of herbicides and pesticides and generally stay away from the temptations of industrial agriculture. In the long term I feel certain that evolution will defeat Monsanto, but I guess that will not prevent the phalanx of lawyers and the genetically modified organisms they employ from doing untold harm before the final collapse. John Palmer
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Precautionary principle: Guilty until proven innocent. Nothing allowed
>> until
>>> conclusive proof of substantial harmlessness. Full transparency for
>> product
>>> content and manufacturing (no trade secrets) and regulatory processes (no
>>> industry lobbying). No grandfathering.
>> =================
>>
>> "So Prometheus, what's your plan if you set the forest on fire when
>> you are cooking one of your so-called gourmet dinners? And how do you
>> know that your fire suppression strategy won't generate additional
>> adverse externalities? Fire is for the gods, not us, you putz!"
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>