Sir, Dr William Reville (Science Today, September 2nd) would be hard pressed to find a worse example than that of the limits of traditional agriculture in feeding the world's population, to illustrate his point that the rejection of science, "as advocated by radical Green philosophy, would be a disastrous mistake." The relative and absolute numbers of hungry people have never been so high as they are today.
The history of high production agriculture, driven as it is by technological "advances" and commercial imperatives, shows clearly that almost everywhere production has been increased, hunger has been its partner. The transfer and promotion of technological solutions tend to increase inequality of power and wealth, concentrating land and resources in the hands of the few while displacing the many.
Traditional forms of agriculture, in stark contrast, maintain equality of power and wealth by allowing land to remain in many hands, thereby encouraging local production for local needs. Science has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the multiple factors which influence crop production (climate, soil composition etc.). Combining this new knowledge with the knowledge gained from thousands of years of farming across the globe will provide a far greater chance to alleviate world hunger than continuing along the disastrous road of the last fifty years of high yield farming.
Greens do not reject good science, but we do rightly criticise when scientific knowledge is used by commercial interests to increase profits at any cost. Modern farming is just one area of human activity in which science has been abused in this way. Yours, etc., Environment spokesperson, Green Party, 5A Upper Fownes Street, Dublin 2.