Should we continue to support publicly funded research on genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops? In Part One, I discussed the difference between science and ethics, presented a brief history of weed control, and explained three moral principles undergirding my environmentalist perspective. I then argued that unqualified endorsement (E) of the research is unjustified, as is unqualified opposition (O). In Part Two, I argue against qualified endorsement (QE), and for qualified opposition (QO).

This study explored local controls relating to trees and spacesof the local environment in Nyamaropa Communal Lands in theNyanga District of eastern Zimbabwe. Controls were consideredin a broad and inclusive framework encompassing codified rules,taboos, and, regulatory norms and emotions. Special emphasis waslaid on people‘s emotional and ethical investment in the abovecomponents of the environment – trees and spaces. The studyemployed intensive informal and group interviews. Results showthat there is tremendous emotional and ethical investment intrees and spaces of the environment in (...) Nyamaropa. Emotions comein a variety of forms: fear, shunning, love, reverence, andconfidence and security enhancement. The emotional and ethicalnorms are designed to govern behavior and the context of resourceutilization. These norms have implications on the organization ofspaces of the local environment and regimes of resource utilizationoccurring in them. Location of resources in spaces of the environmenthas implications on the management of resources within them. Thedomains of human habitation – home bases and home fields – werefound to be the most emotionally laden spaces with trees in thembeing actively planted, nurtured, conserved, eliminated, or destroyedon the basis of certain emotions and norms. The findings of the studyhave implications within the framework of decentralization and ofdemocratization of natural resource management. (shrink)

Questions of value are central to understanding alternative practices of food exchange. This study introduces a practice-based approach to value that challenges the dominant views, which capture value as either an input for or an outcome of practices of exchange. Building on a longitudinal ethnographic study on food collectives, I show how value, rather than residing in something that people share, or in something that objects have, is an ideal target that continuously unfolds and evolves in action. I found that (...) people organized their food collectives around pursuing three kinds of value-ideals, namely good food, good price and good community. These value-ideals became reproduced in food collectives through what I identified as valuing modes, by which people evaluated the goodness of food, prices and community. My analysis revealed that, while participating in food collectives in order to pursue their value-ideals, people were likely to have differing reasons for pursuing them and tended to attach different meanings to the same value-ideal. I argue that understanding how value as an ideal target is reproduced through assessing and assigning value is essential in further explorations of the formation of value and in better understanding the dynamics of organizing alternative practices of food exchange. (shrink)