AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN
FAR-FROM-EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS
(Jose Ma. Ybanez Tomacruz, PhL., EMMB)
Ilya Prigogine, Nobel
Prize laureate for his work in thermodynamics, speaks of far-from equilibrium
conditions or systems.[1]
When
the thermodynamic system forces acting on a system become such that the linear
region is exceeded, however, the stability of the stationary state, or its independence
from fluctuations, can no longer be taken for granted… In some cases, the
analysis leads to the conclusion that a state is “unstable” –in such a state, certain fluctuations, instead of regressing, may be amplified and invade the
system, compelling it to evolve toward a
new regime that may be qualitatively quite different from the stationary states
corresponding to minimum entropy production.
In socio-political terms,
such is well-expounded by Alvin Toffler[2].
Imagine
a primitive tribe. If its birthrate and death rate are equal, the size of the
population remains stable. Assuming adequate food and other resources, the
tribe forms part of a local system in ecological equilibrium. Now increase the
birthrate. A few additional births (without an equivalent number of deaths)
might have little effect. The system may move to a near-equilibrial state.
Nothing much happens. It takes a big jolt to produce big consequences in
systems that are equilibrial or near-equilibrial states. But if the birthrate
should suddenly soar, the system is pushed into far-from-equilibrium
condition…In this state, systems do strange things. They become inordinately
sensitive to external influences. Small inputs yield huge, startling effects.
The entire system may reorganize itself in ways that strike us as bizarre.
As such, developing countries
can be considered as being under far-from-equilibrium condition. Joachim
Schummer[3]
thus says:
…I will
use the term ‘developing countries’ for countries with low or medium state of
development according to the most widely accepted human development index (HDI)
by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The HDI is a composite
index that combines per capita GDP with life expectancy and educational
standards. According to that index, the least developed countries are all in
sub-Saharan Africa to be followed by South Asia, Arab States, East Asia, Latin
America. Beyond these statistical and geographical features, most of these less
developed countries share some characteristics. For instance, historically,
they were former colonies and frequently still have some special ties
(economic, political, military) to their former colonial powers. Many happen to
be rich of material resources for the long-term benefit of the colonial powers.
Large parts of their populations suffer from very basic needs, like
malnutrition and the lack of safe drinking water, sanitation, education, and
health care, despite devastating epidemics like AIDS and malaria. Rural exodus
has even increased these needs through exploding slums around big cities. They
have only poor infrastructures of public and private research and development,
including small public research budgets and virtually no venture capital. Even
if they are currently developing such infrastructures, -as in China- they have
little experience in technology governance, including the launch and conduct of
research programs, safety and environmental regulations, marketing and
patenting strategies, and so on.
As such, developing
countries, being of far-from-equilibrium
condition, are indeed “inordinately sensitive to external influences”[4].
Agriculture is an
essential element in the life of developing countries. A paper of the United Nations Ministerial Conference of the
Least Developed Countries[5] with the theme “Making Globalization Work for the LDCs” said:
Agriculture is the backbone of the LDCs (least
developed countries). It accounts for between 30 to 60 percent of the gross
domestic product (GDP) among the LDCs, employs more people than any other
sector (as much as 70 percent in most cases), represents a major source of
foreign exchange, supplies the bulk of basic food and provides subsistence and
other income to more than half of the LDCs’ population. The strong forward and
backward linkages within the rural sector and with other sectors of the economy
provide added stimulus for growth and income generation.
However, the same
paper says that agriculture, despite its importance, has stagnated, if not
lagged behind[6]:
Agricultural
output in LDCs rose during 1990-00 at an annual average rate of 2.8 percent,
exceeding the rate of 1.9 percent in 1980-90, with some slight improvements in
per capita terms. However, recent data for 2000-05 indicate that there was
virtually no increase in output, or even a slight decline. The situation was
the same for per capita staple food production. In addition, slow food
production growth and sharp annual fluctuations in output remain major and
chronic problems for the LDCs, constituting the major causes of their rising
poverty and food insecurity. Between 1995-97 and 2002-04, the proportion of
undernourished in total population in the LDCs increased from 34 percent to 41
percent, while the absolute number of undernourished is estimated to have increased
from 116 million to 169 million.
Here in the
Philippines, the narrative is no less stark. Citing Jose Ramon Albert, National
Statistics Board Secretary-General, Kim Arveen Patria[7]
says
that in 2009 poverty incidence in the country has been very high among farmers
at 36.7%, second only to fishermen at 41.4%. Such figures are much higher than
the entire Philippines’ poverty incidence which stands at 26.5%, also in 2009.
In 2012, the whole sector of agriculture posted the lowest labor productivity
rate at mere P56,728 which comparatively pales to the P351,024 of the industry
sector, and of the P181,850 of the
service sector.
Technology plays a
vital role in the development and improvement of agriculture. Christine
Peterson and Jacob Heller speak of the promise of technology, in this case,
nanotechnology, in becoming a solution to perennial problems besetting
developing countries.[8]
The
promise of nanotechnology is that, if properly applied, it may offer solutions
for some of the most intractable and longstanding challenges faced by humanity…
it is important that we do not ignore the repercussions of forgoing the
potential benefits of nanotechnology. The wise and ethical development of
nanotechnology can relieve much needless poverty, pain, and death…
Such
was also echoed by information technology quarters delving into agriculture[9].
For commercial farmers, emerging technologies
have brought opportunities and have changed the nature of certain transactions
to the extent that it is difficult to compete unless you are up-to-date with
the new Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools and technological
advancement. For example, today to carry out most commercial marketing and
sales activities, we need an email address and good access to internet, phone
and good technological infrastructure… In addition to being vital for the commercial
farming sector, the use of ICTs can also contribute positively to livelihood
development in rural areas. It has the potential to change the way farmers
access information, making it faster and easier for them to get in touch with
specialists that can provide technical advice and assistance.
However,
such promise is not without its incumbent perils as affirmed also by Peterson
and Heller when they spoke of nanotechnology’s benefits, “…this fact must be
weighed along with nanotechnology’s potential downsides in order to have a
balanced ethical understanding of nanotechnology.”[10]
Emmanuel
Levinas says that by way of labor, the transformation of matter or of the
elements is done by man. Also, he says that the “self”, also transforms the
world or the elements in his image or likeness.
The material world, or the “elemental” as Levinas calls it, is there for
my taking, for my mastery.
The elements remain at the disposal of the “I”
-to take or to leave. Labor will
henceforth draw things from the elements and thus discover the world... This primordial grasp, this emprise of
labor... arouses things and transform nature into a world...[11]
Through
labor, the “I” or “ego” does not only transform matter or the world. It also takes possession or ownership of the world,
or the Other. Thus it can be noted, that
one says “This house is the fruit of my
labor,” “This piece of special paper which used to be just a lump of grass was
made by me,” and so on and so forth.
We identify ourselves with our labor, with our transforming of matter,
and by so doing we also end up appropriating the fruits of our labor. “This finished product is mine
because I made it.” Societies
even create laws to perpetuate and protect ownership of things, thus we have
patents, titles and the likes to whatever we have created, whether it be an
idea, a scientific invention, a song, a poem, a story, a bank account. Again, the “I” simply agglomerates the Other
into the same.
Technology,
being a product of human labor, can thus be a means of the “I” or the “ego”
taking possession, or ownership of, the world, or of the Other. The “I” or
“ego” can take the form of vested-interested groups or individuals, whether
local or multinational. This being so, therefore, technology, specifically
nanotechnology and information and communication technology, as applied in
agriculture, can, in Levinasian language, thus be a means or expression of the
“I” or “ego” absorbing the Other into itself, or of a subject of violence, or
selfishness, or totality. The selfishness, violence, or totality of the ‘I” on
the Other consists in assimilating the Other, as if embracing the Other in an
octopodal dance of death, simply for its own purpose, for its own
interest. Thus, Levinas also says:
But violence does not consist so much in
injuring and annihilating persons as in interrupting their continuity making
them play roles in which they no longer
recognize themselves, making them betray not only commitments but their own
substance, making them carry out actions that will destroy very possibility for
action.[12]
And
so, the utility of nanotechnology and information and communication technology
in developing countries, specifically in agriculture can thus be not as benign
as it may apparently appear.
Our
basic questions therefore are: Can nanotechnology, and information and
communication technology applied in agriculture if used in countries in
far-from-equilibrium conditions, i.e., being developing countries, be
responsible, that is, for the upliftment and progress of developing countries? Can
such thus lead to the developing countries’ human resource becoming, as Nobel Laureate Amartya
Sen says, “not just as the means, but more importantly, as the principal ends
of development?”[13] Will nanotechnology and information and
communication technology be instrumental in leading the citizens of developing
countries into authentic human development, which in the mind of Martha
Nussbaum is to be able “to build for themselves a more ‘fully human’ life –with
an improved life expectancy, a meaningful education, and decisive access to
material security? Within the ambit of such a life…, they would be expected to
conduct themselves, not poorly, but with dignity and flourish”?[14]
Or can nanotechnology and information and communication technology utilized in
agriculture themselves become authentic expressions, as envisioned by Levinas,
of a responsible, Other-oriented global community? Lastly, Ilya Prigogine[15]
essays that though far-from-equilibrium conditions are indeed fraught with
negative possibilities, however, they also can be progenitors of bifurcations,
or changes. That is, if given all the necessary conditions,
far-from-equilibirum conditions can lead to the emergence of dissipative
structures, or order of a higher degree of existence for the peoples,
especially the most vulnerable ones. And so we also ask whether nanotechnology
and I.C.T. in agriculture could provide
such substantial impetus for the emergence of dissipative structures in
developing countries, and thus lead to development as envisioned by Sen,
Nussbaum, and Levinas?
Galileo Galilei himself, warns us of the hopeful
possibilities and the yawning chasm of vissicitudes in view of new technologies. Mary
Allan-Olney, talking of Galileo’s work on his telescope and his discovery of
the satellites of Jupiter says[16]:
… his enemies had been endeavoring to
discredit
him with the Grand Duke ; for he says :
"Tell his Highness that
the discoverer of the new planets is none other than Galileo Galilei, his faithful vassal, to whom the observation
of three nights only was enough to assure
him of the truth of the discovery,
and not the observation of five months, which I have devoted to it ; and let
him lay aside all hesitation or shadow of doubt, for these planets will leave
off being true planets when the sun leaves off being the sun. Assure his
Highness that these rumors
owe their existence to malignity and envy, of which
I find no lack ; and let not his Highness hope to be exempt from it either…. "
But I trust to have found means to stop the mouths of the envious and ignorant.
The clearest argument against them is that they prate in corners, and speak
vain words, but avoid establishing their conceits with pen and ink. But the
fruits of this malignity will be contrary to its authors' intention; for so far
from annulling this great discovery by crying out on it as false, impossible,
contrary to all the ordinances of nature, it will only shine out the more
sublime, the more to be wondered at, and worthy of more esteem than hath ever
been accorded to any heroic greatness.
[1] Ilya
Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with
Nature (U.S.A., Bantam Books Inc., 1984), pp. 140-141.
[2]
Ibid., Alvin Toffler, “Science and Change”, p. xvi.
[3]
Joachim Schummer The Impact of Nanotechnologies on Developing Countries,
Published in: Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor & John Weckert (eds.),
Nanoethics:
The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 2007, pp. 291-307, in Class Compilation for the Short Course on APPLIED ETHICS:
Focus on Information Technology and Nanontechnology, John Weckert (ed.,
& lect.), University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila, Philippines,
15-26 May 2012
[4]
Toffler
[5] http://www.unohrlls.org/UserFiles/File/LDC%20Documents/Turkey/20June07-Agriculture-Final.pdf
[6]
Ibid.
[7] http://ph.news.yahoo.com/farmers--fishermen-still-ph-s-lowest-paid--says-study-081227172.html
[8] Christine
Peterson and Jacob Heller, Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social
Implications of Nanotechnology, Allhoff, Lin, Moor, Weckert, eds. (John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007), p.57, in
Class Compilation for the Short Course on APPLIED ETHICS: Focus on
Information Technology and Nanontechnology, John Weckert (ed., &
lect.), University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila, Philippines, 15-26 May 2012
[9] http://www.web2fordev.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/109-using-innovative-technologies-to-promote-access-to-information
[10]
Ibid.
[11] Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay in Exteriority, Alfonso
Lingis trans., (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Duquesne University Press, 1969) pp.156-157.
[12] Levinas, Totality and Infinity,
p.21.
[13]
Christopher Ryan Maboloc, “The Human
Person in Martha Nussbaum’s Capabilities Ethics,” BUDHI 1, (Quezon City,
Philippines: Ateneo De Manila University), p. 227
[14]
Ibid., p. 228
[15]
Progogine and Stengers, pp. 12-14, 142-143
[16]Mary
Allan-Olney, “THE PRIVATE LIFE OF GALILEO: COMPILED PRINCIPALLY FROM HIS CORRESPONDENCE
AND THAT OF HIS ELDEST DAUGHTER, SISTER MARIA CELESTE,
NUN IN THE FRANCISCAN
CONVENT OF ST. MATTHEW, IN ARCETRI”, Boston: Nichols and Noyes, 1870,
Riverside, Cambridge: Stereotyped and
Printed by H. O. Houghton and Company , p. 65
