Monday, 25 January 2016

"Science: Anti-Organic"

While there are organic and inorganic compounds in the chemical world, these are not what most think of when they hear the word "organic". There was much opposition from "Science" when people started making and using long-standing organic methods like composting. The challenge was to an industry that trans-formed war-time killing chemicals like "agent orange" into pesticides, herbicides and even chemical manures or fertilizers.

The late Sir Albert Howard was a well-know proponent of natural, organic methods like composting. Fighting invalidation from those making fossil fuel based products, and a bundle from them - Howard knew the corporate media, research stations, agriculture universities/colleges, professors - would beckon their savior Science to save them.

And "Science" ran to their defense!  That was back in 1947. Ironically we see much the same now. Yet the mass has caught onto organic so it's "organic" is not such a bad word now. But it has been a long struggle. And while Howard saw the need for people to compost, few still do. Either they have the city do it for them, or just ignore it altogether.

Composting saves about 1/3 of all "waste" from going to the land-fill. But what is more important is that it is magic! To see some discarded bits of food become soil in a short time is awe-some! Then to apply it to the ground and watch more food grow! What an amazing process.

Sadly basically no-one, but this author and a few others, talk about composting the "waste" from our own bodies. Watch for a post on this, likewise, amazing process.

Howard saw "science" and the whole apparatus of corporate owner-ship of our world as detrimental to this world. Each part justifying the other. Science has taken on an even more "magic" role today. Still it is very oft the corporate world using it to support making its products. Let's remember the destructiveness of these chemicals, the atomic bomb, all bombs, and the list goes on. This is why we need independently funded science that searches for truth - not things to sell! But when many, if not most, "scientists" work for corporately funded universities, drug companies, arms manufacturers, etc., is it suitable to both call them scientists and to trust them?