The value content of agricultural technologies and their effect on rural regions and farmers (original) (raw)
Abstract
The premise of this article is that technologies are not neutral in terms of their design objectives, their scale, and the fact that they reflect the physical and social environments in which they have developed. Specific agricultural technologies, the midwestern plow, the California tomato harvester, and various biotechnologies, are evaluated in these terms and shown to have generally predictable impacts upon rural regions and farmers. Finally, the article examines a series of major threats such as climate change that require the rethinking and restructuring of agriculture along more sustainable lines, something the can be accomplished only with a conscious recognition of the non-neutrality of technologies.
Access this article
Subscribe and save
- Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
- Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
- Cancel anytime View plans
Buy Now
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
- Dahlberg, K. A. 1986.New directions for agriculture and agricultural research: Neglected dimensions and emerging alternatives. Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Google Scholar - Dahlberg, K. A. 1988. Ethical and value issues in international agricultural research.Agriculture and Human Values 1, 2 (Winter-Spring):101–111.
Google Scholar - Friedland, H., and A. Barton. 1975.Destalking the wily tomato: A case study in social consequences in California agricultural research. Research Monograph No. 15. Davis, CA: Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences.
Google Scholar - Hallberg, M. C. 1988.The U.S. agricultural and food system: A postwar historical perspective. Publication No. 55. University Park, PA: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, Pennsylvania State University.
Google Scholar - Hightower, J. 1973.Hard tomatoes, hard times. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Google Scholar - Hoskins, G. 1955.The making of the English landscape. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Google Scholar - Illich, I. 1973.Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.
Google Scholar - Knutson, R. D., et al. 1986.Policy tools for U.S. agriculture. B-1548. College Station, TX: Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A & M University.
Google Scholar - Mannheim, K. 1936.Ideology and utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Google Scholar - Mumford, L. 1974.The myth of the machine: Technics and human development. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Google Scholar - Mumford, L. 1959.The story of utopias. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith.
Google Scholar - Robertson, J. 1979.The sane alternative: A choice of futures. St. Paul, MN: River Basin.
Google Scholar - Schumacher, E. F. 1973.Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Google Scholar
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
- Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University, 49008, Kalamazoo, MI
Kenneth A. Dahlberg
Authors
- Kenneth A. Dahlberg
Additional information
This article was prepared for the conference Ethical Choice in an Age of Pervasive Technology, University of Guelph, October 25–29, 1989.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dahlberg, K.A. The value content of agricultural technologies and their effect on rural regions and farmers.Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2, 87–96 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01826925
- Issue date: June 1989
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01826925