Let us take a current regional example. In Latin America, the last two decades have marked a turning point in applied sciences in the field of agricultural development.
Research on genetically modified organisms has resulted in prodigious advance in the design and mass production of transgenic seeds. In principle, there is nothing objectionable to progress in scientific knowledge aimed at enhancing a given country’s agricultural production and making new technologies available which result in better food for more people.
Even from an ecological worldview, scientific research and development for the production of genetically-modified food could be accepted provided that it met certain conditions in accordance with certain principles.
However, what we are witnessing today are the devastating consequences of the indiscriminate implementation of monocultures associated with the agrochemical industry.
What balance of forces made this possible? In which territories was crop replacement promoted? Were local communities involved in the decision process? Is this just a matter of technological change to improve productivity or, together with the introduction of some genetically-modified crops, what we are generating here is an incremental demand for agrochemicals that completely destabilizes the ecosystems into which these crops are introduced (and beyond)? What demand do we seek to meet with the supply generated by this new agricultural model? Has this policy produced a greater and more diverse supply of healthy foods to humanity? With whom did the State empathize when it was about to make a public policy decision that would irreversibly mark the productive development model of one of the key sectors in the region? Does that model take into account the fact that the system in which it is implemented and developed is finite?
From the standpoint of ecological political analysis, the answers to all these questions are univocal, scientifically based, rooted in systemic thinking and inclusive - that is, taking into consideration all the voices, especially those which are not usually heard in this discussion.
A widespread misunderstanding that hovers over political ecology is to consider it a programmatic proposal confined to an environmental agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In 2001, most of the world's environmentalist political expressions agreed on six principles that were included in the founding Charter of the parties coalescing under the name of Global Greens.
It should be noted that not all the environmentalist expressions are part of this global coordinating entity and that many Latin American ecological political spaces define themselves essentially from a territorial perspective.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.