It's hard to respond to the specific points Jay Lehr brings up in the first half of his commentary "When Will We Tire of the Fear Mongers?" (See River Cities' Reader Issue 634, May 23-29, 2007) related to the effects of cranberries, trans fats, DDT, freon, and others. He presents a list of these environmental and health fears and claims they are unfounded without giving any specific reasons why.
I assume Lehr knows what he is talking about. Otherwise he would be advocating the very same thing he is trying to get us away from: jumping to conclusions before we have all the facts and sacrificing our objectivity in the name of promoting a certain agenda.
By not really supplying the reader with any real facts except that fears come and go, Lehr implies that we must go and find the specifics on our own. Then, just as he has done, we will be able to decide on our own what fears are unwarranted.
But Lehr's commentary appears to lack a sense of respect for human ignorance and struggling that can be summed up like this: As we approach the world around us, we are faced with a colossal mystery.
Modern science itself is but a brief testament to this. In its young life of about 500 years, it has gone through several changes of position in regards to what is true about the world. Neither Newton nor Copernicus, two supporting pillars of science, is seen as much of an authority on things today. Newton's optics were based on a very crude atomism that nowhere near approaches the refinement of today's ideas of light as both a physical photon and an energetic wave. Copernicus's solar system looked beautiful with its circular planetary orbits, but they were not even close to the actual paths of the planets.
Whenever we think about scientific ideas, it is good to keep these things in mind. Even today, we are only beginning a detailed investigation with environmental sciences of how the world interacts with itself. Many of these investigations will result in conclusions that will seem quaint to future scientists, but they will also give inspiration and paths of approaching the manifold existence that surrounds us.
Taking just one area Lehr mentions, genetic manipulation shows us how we are only beginning to understand this area, and as with all beginnings each of us proceeds a bit differently. Some approach with caution to the point of unwillingness, while others proceed boldly to the point of recklessness. It may be the case that genetically modified food will not cause any immediate harm to humans, but long-term effects may be different.
An example of the long-term effects of a certain practice can be seen with the use of chemical fertilizers in an experiment anyone can do in their own garden. Simply take the seeds from your own garden and plant them the next year. In one area use manure and compost, while in another area use chemical fertilizers. Over the years you will notice a decline in the quality of plants grown from seeds taken from chemical fertilizer to the point where the seeds become infertile. Those grown from seeds taken from manure and compost fertilizer will more than likely see an increase in quality. (See F. C. King's The Compost Gardener or find out in your own garden.) There's no doubt that chemical fertilizer has tremendous short-term effects on yields, but this comes at the expense of other long-term vital aspects of the plants.
Applying this situation to genetic manipulation, we will certainly see short-term benefits. The question is: Will the plants and animals we genetically modify be able to sustain these benefits? There is already research that recognizes unintended effects on genetically modified organisms that make them appear unhealthy in different ways (Craig Holdrege, In Context, spring 2007). That these will end up being unhealthy on a larger scale is unknown for now.
We are now at a time when we are greedy for knowledge and we want certainty in our understanding. But it is this very desire for knowledge and certainty that distorts our view. Some of our thoughts and ideas about nature are harder than rocks and do not allow for the subtle delicacy that comes to life within and around us. For the poet Goethe, our thoughts must be as fluid and mobile as nature itself to gain any worthwhile understanding.
To approach this truth takes a certain humbleness and patience. The humbleness keeps us always open to new understandings, recognizing that our understanding is not privileged over others or what we may come upon in the future. Patience keeps us from grabbing hold of an idea too tightly and fanatically spreading it around. Together, the two keep us balanced, pressing us forward while not getting ahead of ourselves.
When it comes to scientific ideas, the facts ought to be presented as cleanly as possible, with the humility and patience that those hearing them will consider them and decide on their own how best to act. Any bias, one way or another, infringes on the integrity of those at which it is aimed; it takes away from their freedom to decide for themselves how they want to act in regard to the facts.
So, I suppose my wish is that Lehr would take the great effort and time to explain, as best he can, what is at the bottom of the issues he lightly glanced over for us so that if we have been misinformed we can correct ourselves and move forward with a more solid understanding of the facts, which is a secure path away from fear.
A longer version of this commentary can be found on the Reader's Web site: (http://www.rcreader.com).
Correction
In last week's "Music News" column, information regarding the June 6 issue of NME was incorrect. According to the publication's publicist, "The magazine will actually come with a limited-edition, gatefold 'Rag & Bone' single on red vinyl with a Jack White-designed etching on the B side." The Reader regrets the error.
