Thoughts about human relations with nature and our place in the world play a central role in environmental ethics. In a recently published essay, Payam Moula (KTH, Royal Institute of Technology) investigates the moral status of agricultural biotechnology and, more specifically, genetically modified (GM) crops by employing the hubris argument.
The old notion of hubris, given to us by the ancient Greeks, provides a narrative from which we can understand technology and ourselves. The strong, persuasive power of narratives in ethics and politics has been acknowledged and can be traced as far back as Plato.
Several authors have claimed that to engage in agricultural biotechnology is to exhibit arrogance, hubris, and disaffection. Ronald Sandler offers us an understanding of hubris that he claims gives us a prima facie reason and a presumption against the use of GM crops. At the core, his argument is that biotechnology falls within the tradition of manipulating and dominating our environment, and because this tradition has caused many of our current problems, relying on further manipulation and domination in the form of technological solutions would be hubris.
Payam argues that Sandler’s hubris argument fails for several reasons:
1) Sandler and many others fail to have a proper understanding of agriculture as an inherently technological practice that is radically different from “nature”;
2) the notions of control and manipulation that are central to the concept of hubris are difficult to understand and to use in the context of agriculture;
3) trying to establish a prima facie reason against GM crops runs into serious difficulty because many GM crops are profoundly different from each other; and
4) even if we accept Sandler’s argument of hubris, it actually plays no role in the reasoning and evaluation of the moral status of different GM crops.
In the essay, Payam provides a second interpretation of Sandler’s argument that does not imply that we have reasons to oppose GM crops per se, but rather that when we choose a strategy for meeting our agricultural challenges we cannot rely on GM crops as “the solution”. Payam’s interpretation of the argument might provide us with insights for how GM crops are to be used as a part of an overall strategy, but the argument does not provide us a prima facie reason to oppose GM crops nor does it succeed in establishing a presumption against their use.
Moula, P. 2015. GM Crops, the hubris argument and the nature of agriculture . Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 161-177
A standard argument in the debate on biotechnology and food is that food produced using some kind of biotechnology (for instance genetic modification) is unnatural. Against this background we may understand demands for labelling food, for instance with claims such as ‘all natural ingredients’. There is controversy on how to justify, design, and implement such labelling without misleading the consumer.
Naturalness is not one single concept, but several ones (polysemy). Furthermore, those concepts typically allow degrees, so that things can be more or less natural. This complexity should be reflected when food manufacturers label their products. However, there is no obvious way of presenting an aggregate measure of a particular food item’s naturalness. One way to visualize this is to make a graphical presentation that contains several axes, with the degree of naturalness represented on each axis.
This is done in a recent scientific paper with the title “How to label ‘natural’ foods: A matter of complexity” in the journal Food Ethics. A diagram with more axes would probably be too complex to be practical. It would therefore be advisable to strike a balance between a label’s being comprehensive and its being clear and easily recognizable. A way to solve this would be to analyze what combinations of naturalness axes are present in different food items. If some types of naturalness usually go together, the most common combinations could be represented by a small number of distinctive labels.
Sandin, P. 2017. How to Label ‘Natural’Foods: a Matter of Complexity. Food Ethics 1-11
More information: Per Sandin, email@example.com