In ‘The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate’ Dane Scott effectively explains various philosophical and practical critiques of the ‘technological fix’, and how these arguments have been applied to the agricultural biotechnology debate against genetically modified (GM) foods. Scott defines a ‘technological fix’ as “[…] the solution to a problem that results from reframing a social problem as a technological one [reducing] seemingly insurmountable social problems to manageable levels.” (Scott 209), Scott describes multiple practical oppositions to GM foods, the third of which resonates with me the most; “First, technological fixes do not solve problems and, second, they create new problems. The third criticism is that” (Scott 215) “technological fixes for the problems of intensive agriculture are designed to preserve the current technological system by fixing it, rather than looking for alternative systems. In some cases, it may be wiser to question that system itself; to ask, in effect, ‘Is the current system worth conserving?’” (Scott 219).

In this blog post I would like to expand upon the third practical criticism of the agricultural technological fixes as described by Scott, not to argue against the technology of GM foods themselves, but to argue against the systems that technology exists within. For example the analogy Mark Lynas presents in his talk at the 2013 Oxford Farming Conference ‘if you oppose the technology of genetic modification because it comes from a big corporation do you also oppose the wheel because it is sold by big auto companies?’ (paraphrased from Lynas), of course we don’t, but that does not mean we should not still oppose the excesses of Big Auto. I would argue that for ‘technological fixes’ to be useful and worthwhile they need to be reframed as technology to add to the human roster (like the wheel) and not as fixes at all. It is not right to be against GMs just because they are new tech, but it is important to criticize the systems treating this technology as a fix and what ideals that approach upholds.

I believe the main blockage that causes our inability to properly utilize technological advancements to end world hunger, for example, is that we make these advancements and immediately ask, ‘how can we exclude anyone else from using this technique/product without paying us first?’ I would be more in favour of technological advancements if their circulation were made more egalitarian in nature. Of course, patents are necessary to ensure that no dupes are made that compromise the effectiveness of whatever invention is in question, but, for example, as Tim Folger describes in his article ‘The Next Green Revolution’, patents also allow for the exploitation of farmers since their “[…] contract with Monsanto does not allow them to save seeds for planting; they must purchase its patented seeds each year” (Folger). This coupled with Scott’s explanation that “the costs of high-yield varieties and the technological input combined with the profits made from increased yields encourage[s] farmers to plant as much of their land as possible in the high yield [crops]. This decrease[s] the availability of a variety of foods and access to micronutrients [for the farmers]” (Scott 224). By forcing farmers to only plant one type of crop (both through legal means in the case of Monsanto and through profit motives) we limit their ability to feed themselves, and even their ability to grow varied crops and thus diversify their income, putting them in a precarious position. This example illustrates that while crops giving a higher yield and this advancement in technology in general is a good thing, the systems that distribute the technology still perpetuate and reproduce systems of inequality.

By framing advancements in technology as “fixes” we limit ourselves, by framing technology as something to be patented and sold we lose the ability to be truly helpful in society. As long as there is a profit motive in the fight to end world hunger, we choose not to end it.

• Renée

Sources:

Scott, Dane. “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 24, no. 3, June 2011, pp. 207–226. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2170640&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Lynas, Mark. “2013 Oxford Farming Conference”. Retrieved from Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/56745320

Folger, Tim. “The Next Green Revolution”. National Geographic Magazine. Retrieved from the National Geographic website. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/