Even their confusion is confused: the liberal embrace of “organic”

August 1, 2009: What if your friend buys a car, and, as time passes, you realize that she loves everything about it. Performance? Excellent! Reliability? Astounding! Styling? Magnificent!

That would be odd. Surely there is something about the car that is less than excellent, even poor. One might say that her assessments of the many features of her car exhibit uniform favor and that that uniformity of favor is surprising or unexpected—something that, prima facie, stands in need of explanation.

Political orientations

Our embrace of political orientations is like that. “Conservativeness” or “liberalness” is some form of embrace of a sprawling and messy assortments of ideals, beliefs, and convictions that (with regard at least to a prominent subset) fail to reflect a single philosophy.

Here’s the surprising thing: with some familiar exceptions (e.g., libertarians among Republicans; Quakers among liberals; etc.), people tend to embrace pretty much every element of the whole mess (i.e., they exhibit uniform favor). So, if, say, John is a conservative Republican, then we can expect him to believe in a strong military and to enjoy old-fashioned expressions of patriotism. If Jane is a liberal Democrat, we can expect her to support “a woman’s right to choose” and to look favorably upon ethnic diversity.

Again, there are exceptions, but they tend to follow familiar patterns. Lots of semi-selective belief “packages” are conceivable regarding the whole messy stew of familiar liberal political beliefs. But, in fact, one finds only a few familiar kinds. Same goes for conservatives. (Try to find a conservative or Republican who is down on the pursuit of wealth! Show me a liberal who doesn’t celebrate “diversity”!)

BUT WAIT. One might argue that “uniformity of favor” (UF) is precisely what one would expect, for the set of liberal (or conservative) ideas are indeed unified by a philosophy or a small set of core values/beliefs. There's no reason why a car should be uniformly excellent. But there's every reason that the set of familiar conservative beliefs will all be conservative.

That does seem true for some, perhaps many, of the ideas of liberals and conservatives. But it seems false for many others. For instance, why expect liberals to reject and condemn the development of nuclear power? (Is it liberal to fret over the welfare of future generations? Why isn't that conservative?) But they do, almost always.

Why expect a conservative to suppose that an apparently brain-dead person has an active and sophisticated mental life? (Remember the Terri Schiavo case?) Is there something about conservatism that inclines one to reject empirical evidence?

Why expect a liberal to embrace multiculturalism? Why expect a conservative to oppose environmentalism or land and resource conservation? Etc.

Given the manifestly suspect doctrinal fidelity (or coherence) of the familiar bundle of "conservative" or "liberal" beliefs, one is tempted to make an unpleasant suggestion: that most conservatives and liberals don't think their way to their political convictions; rather, they fall in line.

My suspicion is that a form of irrationality is at work here. (Actually, likely there are several forms.) Given that, leaving aside core convictions/ideas, the "liberal" or "conservative" idea bundles are plainly illogical (or doctrinally indefensible), and given that, nonetheless, most conservatives and liberals embrace the whole package (or, at any rate, enough of it to exhibit the illogicalness at issue), there would appear to be some poor thinking or thoughtlessness afoot.

So why is it that virtually all liberals "celebrate diversity" and virtually all conservatives "defend the rights of the unborn"? How come conservatives aren't especially interested in conserving things (such as wilderness or our humane cultural legacy) and liberals are so illiberal about incorrect or hateful speech?

What gives?

If there is irrationality at work here, I’m not sure what it is. Is it that we are members of a team--one competing with another—and thus, knowing that success depends on team unity, we automatically go along with the team leadership’s agenda and game plan—forgetting that, in truth, we do not actually or equally endorse each element of that agenda?

Do the set of “liberal” ideas reflect, not principle, but (to an extent) historical accident (and strategy and whatnot), and, because we are unreflective or shallow or suggestible, we fail to notice this fact, embracing every element with equal passion and conviction?

Is it that most of us do not have the time to examine the issues, and so we trust some elite to work out the appropriate application of values—only we fail to perceive this elite's incompetence, corruption, or opaque strategic machinations?

Are there other fallacies at work?

The opposing view (I think)

My guess is that, with regard to their own convictions, many liberals and conservatives would insist that the set of “liberal” (or “conservative”) ideas do hang together naturally: they are (more or less) the result of the application of core beliefs and values: belief in tradition and unobtrusive government, belief in government as a social problem-solver, etc. Hence, no fallacy or irrationality is involved in the phenomena of political UF (PUF). --Not, at least, in the case of my side, they will say.

Maybe so. But I have my doubts. Really look at these beliefs.

Liberals and farming

Take farming. Liberals can generally be counted on to embrace “organic farming” and to reject “genetic modification” of foods (GM).

First, just what is liberal about these stances? Do pesticides prevent free expression? Are science and technology the enemies of equality?

Now, in fact (see below), the organic farming philosophy is shot through with myth and fallacy; logically speaking, embrace of this philosophy is similar to the embrace of, say, alternative medicines or conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of JFK. File under “people thinking poorly.”

GM foods? Again, the rejection of this technology depends largely on myth and fallacy. In fact, given the likely (and unfortunate and probably avoidable) facts of world population, a rejection of GM would be catastrophic.

Naturally, these points require evidence and argument. But they’re readily available. And it ain't rocket science. It’s like belief in alternative medicine: a rudimentary grasp of scientific method—and especially an understanding of such tools as clinical trials and double-blinding—will quickly end enthusiasm for homeopathy, medicinal herbs, and all the rest. A similar competence (minimal scientific or logical literacy) will be devastating for belief in organic foods and a rejection of GM.

OK, so why do liberals take the views that they do about this stuff? There’s nothing really “liberal” about these beliefs. They aren’t liberal; they’re foolish and unfortunate.

(I've chosen an example among liberals in part because most people would place me in that camp. I could easily have chosen a "conservative" example.)

The case against organic farming

For those interested in the logical or evidential case against these planks (or plankettes) of the liberal agenda, I recommend reading Robert T. Carroll’s “Skeptic’s Dictionary.” Read in particular his article Organic food and farming.

Carroll, a philosopher, begins by stating, “Organic food is food produced by organic farming, a set of techniques based on anti-scientific beliefs, myths, and superstition.” By the end of the article, it is difficult avoiding embrace of that thesis.

You might want to read Ben Goldacre’s article in this morning’s Guardian Online: Argument is about capitalism, not food.

Goldacre easily tears apart a prominent pro-organic organization’s critique of a British agency's predictable recent finding—that “organic food is no better than normal food, in terms of composition, or health benefits.”

Goldacre starts by saying, “I don't care about organic food. I am interested in bad arguments”—namely, those provided by the pro-organic Soil Association.

Ooh, I love it when he talks “logical” like that to me.

He ends with this:

In reality, this is not about organic food. The emotive commentary in favour of organic farming bundles together diverse and legitimate concerns about unchecked capitalism in our food supply: battery [hence inhumane] farming, corruptible regulators, or reckless destruction of the environment, where the producer's costs do not reflect the true full costs of their activities to society, to name just a few. Each of these problems deserves individual attention.

But just as we do not solve the problems of deceitfulness in the pharmaceutical industry by buying homeopathic sugar pills, so we may not resolve the undoubted problems of unchecked capitalism in industrial food production by giving money to the ... [2 billion pound] industry represented by the Soil Association [a prominent pro-organic group that routinely defies logic and ignores evidence].

Aha! Goldacre is in effect weighing in on my PUF issue. He seems to be saying that there is a group of thinkers (contemporary liberals, more or less) with “legitimate” concerns who, owing perhaps to some sort of emotionalism (and whatnot), bundle (and conflate) issues, supposing that embrace of organic food and rejection of GM cohere with the set of (reasonable) criticisms and suspicions regarding Big Money and Farming.

As I’ve argued elsewhere, I don’t think “emotionalism” helpfully identifies the fallacies at work here. (Emotions are problematic only when they are tied to false beliefs and fallacies.) But I’m sure that Goldacre is on to something with this notion of “bundling” and mistaken association.

It is as though we assume that the world has a simple regularity that it does not in fact have: the bad guys are always bad and, if they embrace something, it is bad. The good guys are always good, and if they embrace something, it is good.

Not. C'mon. Are we not adults?

As Goldacre points out, “organic” farming IS big money, big farming. Further, it is relatively hazardous (manure and disease) and it is ecologically unsound (future generations will have fewer resources). (See Carroll.)

So how come liberals aren’t down on it?

These pro-organic liberals: even their confusion is confused.

See a clip from Penn and Teller's recent episode concerning organic food.

UPDATE:

For some reason, the system won't let me leave comments. Go figure.

I just wanted to respond to 10:57 (see under comments). I seem to have ruffled his/her feathers. [I see that Bohrstein has anticipated many of my points. BS, did I actually give you a B? What was I thinking?]

Dear 10:57:

Pace!

Gosh, I would have thought people would be more careful these days employing the adjective “stupid.”

But that’s OK. I guess I’m stupid all too often. (BTW, I do not believe that you are stupid. I suspect that you fall prey to the syndrome I focused upon in my post. You are a competitor and an advocate. That's fine, but be an honest thinker first. No biggie. I have high hopes for you.)

Allow me to address your comment, point by point:



“You assume that organic farming is some new invention.”

I don’t know why you think I assume this. In any case, I fail to see how the question of organic farming’s “newness” or “oldness” is relevant here. I am, of course, aware that some central techniques and practices of “organic” farming are old—e.g., the use of manure as fertilizer. OK, that’s not new. So what? What is your point?

The question is: what kinds of farming are available? What are the pros and cons of each, short-term and long-term? Those who embrace organic farming steadfastly cherry-pick or exaggerate its pros and seem determined to ignore its cons. (It's as though they are all enrolled in some goddam debating class. Heh heh.) They make claims (e.g., that current pesticide residue on produce is toxic) that the relevant experts and studies have repeatedly refuted. Their fidelity to this “old” (and thus simple and good?) agriculture seems to be driven more be ideology (or…?) than logic. Very curious.

"In fact … industrial factory farming is a relatively new form of food production which uses pesticides, cancer-causing chemicals such as methyl-bromide; genetically-modified foods splicing the genes of tomatoes with tuna; irradiation, etc.”

You seem unaware that contemporary organic farming IS "industrial," as you are using that term. OF is dominated by Big Farming, not small independent farmers. Further, that non-organic farming techniques are in some sense “new” is irrelevant to the questions at hand. Newness is not necessarily bad, just as oldness is not necessarily good.

I don’t have the space or time to address every point (though all are addressed in the sources I cited--not interested in reading that?), but briefly:

• Organic farmers use pesticides too. The question is: which pesticide uses are less problematic (short-term and long-term). You seem unaware that experts have faulted “organic” pesticides as particularly problematic.

• Again, were you to consult expert opinion (discriminating between the reliable and unreliable, looking, of course, for consensus among the relevant experts), you would be compelled to abandon your fears of GM and irradiation. All that you are doing here is confronting this factoid and shouting, “Not!”

“Not to mention that industrial food just tastes like shit compared with organically grown foods.”

Well, you are ignoring the evidence. You are warranted in citing scientific testimony when it roughly achieves consensus. There is no consensus for the assertion that organic foods taste better. On the contrary, my impression is that existing studies tend to refute your belief. (I guess you didn’t watch the Penn and Teller clip. For fun, you might check it out.)

“Most of the GM and industrial foods have had very little research into the effects they have on human health and bio-diversity….”

Well, again, the relevant scientific testimony tends to the contrary of your view. GM is actually fairly old, and we know enough about it to be confident that it will not produce the “scary” disasters the pro-organic crowd loves to portray (taking a page, I guess, out of the Bush/Rove playbook). Again, read the Carroll piece. Look at his references. Read Goldacre’s piece. Find reasonable, objective people on the “other side.” Be fair to them. Don’t reject a view on the basis of ad hominems (viz., that some who take the non-organic side work for or reflect the views of rich interest groups).

Ironically(?), you seem to be doing precisely what I warn against in my piece: you assume that the bad guys (big agricultural concerns, etc.) necessarily do bad things. No. Even Duane Andreas does good things sometimes (mostly by accident, not by design). Why is this so hard to accept?

Further, you’re obviously spouting “talking points.” I’m not interested in rhetoric; I’m interested in evidence. Stop viewing this as a competition.

“Industrial farming is irresponsible and until the proper scientific research has been produced which explores the effects of the use of pesticides and genetic modification on bio-diversity, I'll stick with the traditional forms of food production which are organic.”

First, assertion ("irresponsible") is not argumentation.

Second, you are assuming what you are obliged to establish: that we do not know the effects of pesticides (again, you wrongly assume that organic farmers do not use pesticides—and that the same “issue” does not arise for them)
and GM, etc. Again, you need to survey the available expert testimony/studies, favoring the scientific/reliable over the merely anecdotal or poorly conducted. Upon doing that, you will find little reason to worry about current pesticides (much improved over the old ones, thanks to the environmental movement and its critics of Big Farming) or GM or effects on bio-diversity.

Hey, if I’m wrong about that assessment, then I will change my view. I want to follow the evidence, and if the evidence favors your view (or some part of it), I will join you.

It’s all about the evidence, you see. This is not a competition or contest. First, get the facts, the truth. Only then: put on your warrior outfit and grab your megaphone. Logic before advocacy. OK?

“Furthermore, the British study makes the claim that organic foods are no healthier than industrial foods. No one ever claimed they were.”

This claim is routinely made by the advocates of organic foods. You know that.

“History has shown that industrialization has produced all sorts of unintended effects on the natural environment. Why should we think that industrial food production as any less harmful?”

There is wisdom in your skepticism. We should be very careful adopting new technologies, etc., especially when they involve massive activity. But you seem to believe that organic farming is excluded from “industrialization.” It isn’t. Organic farming is now Big Farming. Further, by all accounts, it uses much more land than does non-organic farming. It is much less efficient in the conversion of natural resources into food. As far as I know, that is not in dispute.

You seem unaware of the world’s population issues. How can that be? (You know better.) And you seem to insist on viewing “organic farming” as little traditional farms dotting the landscape, emitting the moos and clucks of happy critters, leaving a small footprint and no residue. Surely you realize that that is nonsense.

Drop the talking points—these are inevitably dishonest. Honestly address the points and arguments of your critics. If the logic and evidence favors your side, then competent and honest thinkers will join you there eventually.

If, as I suspect, the logic favors some version of non-organic farming, will you defy or ignore this?

If so, how are you different from George W. Bush?

Ah, but I sense that you are, at bottom, nothing at all like W. You want to do the right things. So do I.

We’re on the same team, you see? --RB