Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper argues that in modern (agro)biotechnology, (un)naturalness as an argument contributed to a stalemate in public debate about innovative technologies. Naturalness in this is often placed opposite to human disruption. It also often serves as a label that shapes moral acceptance or rejection of agricultural innovative technologies. The cause of this lies in the use of nature as a closed, static reference to naturalness, while in fact “nature” is an open and dynamic concept with many different meanings. We propose an approach for a dynamic framework that permits an integrative use of naturalness in debate, by connecting three sorts of meaning that return regularly in the arguments brought forward in debate; cultural, technological, and ecological. We present these as aspects of nature that are always present in the argument of naturalness. The approach proposes a dynamic relation between these aspects, formed by gradients of naturalness, which in turn are related to ethical concerns. In this way we come to an overview that makes it possible to give individual arguments a relative place and that does justice to the temporality of the concept of nature and the underlying ethical concerns stakeholders have in respect to innovation in agriculture.|
|Keywords||Naturalness Biotechnology Genomics Agriculture Public debate Ethical values|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
P. van Haperen, B. Gremmen & J. Jacobs (2012). Reconstruction of the Ethical Debate on Naturalness in Discussions About Plant-Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812.
Helena Siipi (2004). Naturalness in Biological Conservation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
Ben Ridder (2007). An Exploration of the Value of Naturalness and Wild Nature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):195-213.
Hub Zwart (2009). Biotechnology and Naturalness in the Genomics Era: Plotting a Timetable for the Biotechnology Debate. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):505-529.
Helena Siipi (2008). Dimensions of Naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 71-103.
Theodore Sider (1993). Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Henk Verhoog, Mirjam Matze, Edith Lammerts van Bueren & Ton Baars (2003). The Role of the Concept of the Natural (Naturalness) in Organic Farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (1):29-49.
Douglas Edwards (2013). Naturalness, Representation and the Metaphysics of Truth. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):384-401.
Brian Weatherson (2013). The Role of Naturalness in Lewis's Theory of Meaning. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 1 (10).
Albert W. Musschenga (2002). Naturalness: Beyond Animal Welfare. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (2):171-186.
Kenneth H. David & Paul B. Thompson (eds.) (2008). What Can Nanotechnology Learn From Biotechnology?: Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience From the Debate Over Agrifood Biotechnology and Gmos. Elsevier/Academic Press.
Dan Marshall (2012). Analyses of Intrinsicality in Terms of Naturalness. Philosophy Compass 7 (8):531-542.
Dane Scott (2011). The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (3):207-226.
Rae Langton & David Lewis (2001). Marshall and Parsons on 'Intrinsic'. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):353-355.
Added to index2011-11-26
Total downloads3 ( #213,434 of 722,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?