農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化或單一有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的應(yīng)用【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　中文3301字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Agricultural Modernization or an Organic Treadmil

2、l</p><p>　　The Development of Organic Farming: Applying Ecological Modernization Theory</p><p>　　According to one of its founding theorists, Arthur Mol, four central elements define ecological

3、 modernization theory. The first concerns technology. From this perspective, science and technology are‘ central institutions for ecological reform’(Mol 1997, 140). Unlike earlier environmental thinking, which

4、 perceived technological development as a source of ecological problems, ecological modernization theorists argue that, in the contemporary era, technology is being used to he</p><p>　　ideas and buil

5、d public support for environmental practices while working with state</p><p>　　and private actors to develop environmentally sound policies. These are the four central features of ecological modernization th

6、eory. Ecological modernization theorists have applied this perspective to interpret developments such as the reduction in packaging waste (Lauber and Ingram 2000), improved industrial energy efficiency (Enevoldsen 2000),

7、 and the reduction of toxic waste within the chemical industry(Mol 1995; 1997). </p><p>　　The institutionalization of organic agriculture provides another opportunity to assess how well ecological modernizat

8、ion theory applies to the social processes associated with this development. The growth in organic farming beginning in the 1970s emerged out of a confluence of social developments, some of which began decades earlier (G

9、uthman 2004a; Treadwell et al. 2003). J. I. Rodale is credited with advancing organic farming in the United States beginning in the 1940s through his magazine Orga</p><p>　　An Organic Treadmill</p>&l

10、t;p>　　In many ways, the development of organic food production and the institution alization of these practices by the federal government reflect the central argument put forth by ecological modernization theorists. S

11、ocial movement organizations representing farmers, consumers, and environmentalists, market forces,‘ enlightened' business owners, and the state acted together to create a policy designed to advance a more environmen

12、tally sound method of farming. In contrast, treadmill theorists see a sys</p><p>　　In examining these central actors, capital is viewed as fully committed to economic expansion due to the competitive pressur

13、e inherent in market economies. Owners must continuously reinvest in order to remain profitable in a competitive environment. This typically means expanding production or developing less costly means of producing goods a

14、nd services. Although cost reductions can, at times, also involve environmental efficiencies, historically this process has involved the introduction of l a</p><p>　　Agricultural Modernization or an Organic

15、Treadmill</p><p>　　In looking at the development of organic agriculture in the United States, there is</p><p>　　significant evidence to support both ecological modernization and treadmill theory

16、</p><p>　　interpretations. In this sense, when considering the organic case, it is not possible</p><p>　　to declare a definitive ‘winner.’ But examining the social processes associated with spec

17、ific economic developments provides us with more material with which to consider our environmental future from each theoretical perspective. Do the development and spread of organic agriculture represent a trend toward a

18、n ecologically sustainable food production system? While the ultimate benefits of organic agriculture cannot be determined based on this analysis, even if those benefits were significant, a c</p><p>　　Thus,

19、the environmental promise of organic production may not prove to be as great as implied by ecological modernization theory. In addition, critics are likely correct in that the benefits of organic production will be far f

20、ewer than expected, given treadmill processes that tend to erase environmental gains</p><p>　　over time.</p><p>　　But one might still argue that organic production represents a lasting improveme

21、nt over conventional agriculture. The analysis need not focus on the issue of whether organics are all they are alleged to be or whether organic production will eventually fully displace conventional agriculture, but rat

22、her, is it better than the alternative, even if limited to a relatively small segment of the overall food market? Granted, treadmill processes favoring greater reliance on energy and (organic)chemical</p><p>

23、;　　But the nature of the food industry also raises questions about the applicability of the treadmill approach. A central claim of treadmill theory is that overall production increases over time. Thus, occasional savings

24、 in one sector of production or consumption do not represent true environmental improvement, because those savings simply get displaced elsewhere. For example, consumers who save money by purchasing more energy-efficient

25、 hybrid vehicles will use those fuel cost savings to purchase s</p><p>　　even though it is limited to a single, rather unique, industry.</p><p>　　In addition, ecological modernization theorists

26、might argue that given the growing ecological sensibility among consumers and producers, further innovations are likely to take the form of still more ecologically sound food production. In deed, there is evidence of thi

27、s in the form of an array of upstart farmers’ movements that seek to go ‘‘beyond organic’’ (LaTrobe and Acott 2000; Minick 2004). The creation of national organic standards can be cynically viewed as a maneuver that co-o

28、pted a grass</p><p>　　Conclusion</p><p>　　Both the treadmill of production and ecological modernization theories offer insightful perspectives on the social processes associated with environment

29、al developments. When looking at the spread of organic production practices and their institutionalization in the form of state-sanctioned standards, there is a great deal of empirical evidence that can be marshaled to s

30、upport either perspective. Social movements, consumers, entrepreneurs, and the state have acted in concert to develop agricultur</p><p>　　While this analysis does not enable us to draw definitive conclusions

31、 regarding the long term environmental prognoses offered by ecological modernization and treadmill theorists, the organic case provides a valuable opportunity to consider the implications, not only for the agriculture in

32、dustry but for society as a whole. Although it is difficult to see how the growth in organic production and the creation</p><p>　　of standards alone help to verify some of the more ambitious claims of ecolog

33、ical modernization theory regarding a wholesale shift to ecological sustainability, the nature of the food industry makes it one in which a claim regarding permanent ecological gains are defensible. If in fact demand for

34、 food is truly finite, real ongoing environmentally beneficial improvements in production practices can be realized.</p><p>　　But in the broader debate, treadmill theory claims about the failures of ecologic

35、al</p><p>　　modernization on a macro level have yet to be adequately refuted. The overall logic of</p><p>　　capitalism still favors continuous economic expansion. Although the case can be made&l

36、t;/p><p>　　that there are real limits within the food industry given the nature of the demand for</p><p>　　food, this is not the case for most other commodities. In these other cases the drive for&

37、lt;/p><p>　　profit will continuously favor reinvestment and expanded production. In some cases,</p><p>　　these may be more environmentally sound than previous forms of production, but unless real l

38、imits to consumer demand and the quest for profit can be found, any environmental improvements are likely to be overtaken by future increases in withdrawals of limited natural resources and the addition of still more pol

39、lutants to the ecosystem. On the macro level the only way that environmental improvements can be seen as real progress toward full ecological sustainability is if such improvements are fou</p><p>　　Source:

40、New Paltz,2006’’Theoretical Interpretations of the Growth in Organic Agriculture’’ Harvard agriculment review. August.pp.128-131</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化或單一有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的應(yīng)用</p>

41、;<p>　　農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展：應(yīng)用生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論</p><p>　　根據(jù)創(chuàng)始理論家亞瑟摩爾的生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化的四個核心要素理論，第一，首要關(guān)注的就是技術(shù). 從這個角度看，科學(xué)技術(shù)是生態(tài)改革的重要組成結(jié)構(gòu)（摩爾，1997.140）. 早先的環(huán)保意識認(rèn)為生態(tài)問題的根源是科技的發(fā)展，生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論家認(rèn)為，在當(dāng)今時代，技術(shù)是用來幫助我們實現(xiàn)生態(tài)持續(xù)發(fā)展的。第二,生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論家認(rèn)為市場經(jīng)濟(jì)體是能和環(huán)境完全兼容并支持

42、環(huán)保生產(chǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)。他們強(qiáng)調(diào)提高生態(tài)經(jīng)濟(jì)和市場動態(tài)改革及將創(chuàng)新者，企業(yè)家和其他經(jīng)濟(jì)主體作為社會生態(tài)重組載體的重要性, (p141)。此類措施可以通過環(huán)保的競爭，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和認(rèn)證方案的建立，對相關(guān)消費(fèi)者環(huán)保意識的呼吁，其自身的利基市場的形成來滿足其市場需求。第三，生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論在環(huán)?，F(xiàn)狀中的作用. 即使是它是一種完全不同于傳統(tǒng)的“控制和指導(dǎo)”方法，也不是對集中官僚主義強(qiáng)加硬性規(guī)定. 現(xiàn)代生態(tài)引導(dǎo)個人對環(huán)境無害行為.這允許個人在參與特定改革的靈活性和

43、針對性。最后，生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論為環(huán)保運(yùn)動組織確立了一個新角色.根據(jù)摩爾所說，環(huán)保運(yùn)動的位置正慢慢從一于社會發(fā)展外的評論員變成一個以生態(tài)改革發(fā)展為目的的獨立的關(guān)鍵參與者。（摩爾1997年，142）今天的運(yùn)動有助于在國家和個人的合</p><p>　　農(nóng)業(yè)的制度化提供了另一個契機(jī)，通過這個制度化的發(fā)展將生態(tài)學(xué)現(xiàn)代化理論很好地適用于社會過程。有機(jī)耕種的增長了在20世紀(jì)70年代涌現(xiàn)出社會發(fā)展的合流，其中一些還要更早十幾年出

44、現(xiàn)（Guthman 2004a; Treadwell et al. 2003）。J. I. Rodale在20世紀(jì)40年代的美國通過他的雜志《有機(jī)園藝》讓人們相信超前的有機(jī)種植。然而就是這20世紀(jì)60年代的結(jié)合環(huán)保和健康的回歸土地運(yùn)動奠定了20世紀(jì)70年代有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的擴(kuò)張的基礎(chǔ)。從那以后，有機(jī)生產(chǎn)方式進(jìn)入了大部分的農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)業(yè)，通過國家支持的形式，導(dǎo)致了產(chǎn)業(yè)區(qū)域的迅速增長(Dimitri and Greene 2002)。</p>

45、<p><b>　　單一農(nóng)業(yè)</b></p><p>　　在許多方面，有機(jī)食品生產(chǎn)的發(fā)展和政府出臺的有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)制度化措施反應(yīng)了生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論家提出的核心論點。社會運(yùn)動組織表明了農(nóng)民，消費(fèi)者，環(huán)保主義者，市場力量，'開明'的經(jīng)營業(yè)主，和政府團(tuán)結(jié)協(xié)作共同創(chuàng)造一個旨在推進(jìn)環(huán)保農(nóng)作的政策。與此相反，跑步機(jī)理論家看到了一個由資本，勞動，政府和那些對擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)有興趣卻很少考慮生

46、態(tài)影響的人共同組成的驅(qū)動系統(tǒng)（Schnaiberg1980; Schnaiberg和古爾德1994年）。從這個角度看，有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)，至多，是一個由單一力量主宰，以增大利益和擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)為目的真正的社會變革運(yùn)動。</p><p>　　這檢測這些核心要素的過程中，由于市場經(jīng)濟(jì)中固有競爭壓力，資金被視為完全致力于經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的因素。業(yè)主為保持在競爭環(huán)境中獲利必須不斷進(jìn)行再投資。這通常意味著擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)或開發(fā)生產(chǎn)低成本的商品和服務(wù). 雖

47、然成本降低，有時也包括環(huán)境效益，但是歷史上這一過程所涉及的勞動力的減少 ，也意味著引進(jìn)更多的有毒化學(xué)品和對提高能源技術(shù)的依賴。因此，整體生產(chǎn)速度的提高導(dǎo)致了越來越多的資源提取和有害產(chǎn)品的產(chǎn)生。</p><p>　　農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化還是單一有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)</p><p>　　放眼看美國農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展，可以同時支持農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化和單一有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的理論闡釋. 在這個意義上說，有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)中，很難確定一個明確的贏家. 但是

48、，研究和相關(guān)的社會進(jìn)程有關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展時，它提供了更多從每個理論的角度來考慮我們的未來環(huán)境的材料。是否做有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展和傳播代表了一種可持續(xù)的糧食生態(tài)生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)的發(fā)展趨勢？雖然有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)的這些利益顯著，但它的最終利益無法在此基礎(chǔ)上分析.單一生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化核心理論的批判仍可以用在這里：將有限的積極發(fā)展作為可持續(xù)發(fā)展道路的開始時錯誤的.盡管取得了重大增長，有機(jī)食品仍然是一個利基市場，具有成本競爭力的產(chǎn)業(yè)，將可能依然存在，例如（Guthman 2004

49、a;里昂1999年邁克爾遜2001b）。因此，有機(jī)生產(chǎn)做出的環(huán)境承諾可能被證實和生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論完全一樣。此外，評論家們可能是正確的，因為有機(jī)生產(chǎn)的好處將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)少于預(yù)期，由于其單一的過程，隨著時間的推移，往往會擦除環(huán)境利益.</p><p>　　但仍可能有人認(rèn)為，有機(jī)生產(chǎn)代表了一種相對傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)而言持續(xù)的改善。研究分析的焦點不是有機(jī)物是否都是如他們所聲稱的那樣，也不是是機(jī)產(chǎn)品是否最終將完全取代傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)的問題，而是在整體

50、食品市場中相對有限的選擇性. 當(dāng)然，單一進(jìn)程更加有利于增加對能源和集約型（有機(jī)）化學(xué)產(chǎn)品的依賴，也可能未來的有機(jī)產(chǎn)業(yè)比現(xiàn)在很多傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)更有害于環(huán)境。即使有機(jī)生產(chǎn)的一些優(yōu)勢會隨著時間的推移逐漸丟失，但是它仍可以證明比傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)強(qiáng)。這表明了一些生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化大膽理論的失敗，但它也表明環(huán)境保護(hù)能夠取得真正的進(jìn)展，至少，該地區(qū)生態(tài)破壞的速度可以放慢。</p><p>　　但食品業(yè)也提出了關(guān)于單一操作的應(yīng)用性問題。跑步機(jī)理論的一

51、個核心主張是整體產(chǎn)量隨著時間的推移而增加。因此，生產(chǎn)部門一個偶然的儲蓄或消費(fèi)并不代表真正的環(huán)境改善，因為那些的儲蓄只是轉(zhuǎn)移到了其他地方。例如，消費(fèi)者用節(jié)省的錢購買節(jié)能的混合動力汽車，然后用這些燃料成本節(jié)省下來的錢購買別的東西，從而引導(dǎo)一些其他形式的產(chǎn)品，這樣的節(jié)能可以改善環(huán)境. 然而，雖然一個人的能力消耗消費(fèi)品的能力幾乎是無限的，但是食品行業(yè)的獨特之處就是可以考慮到其有限的需求。雖然高要求處理和遠(yuǎn)距離的異國食品運(yùn)輸當(dāng)然是可能的，但是也給

52、了食品的易腐性質(zhì)和生物的限制性。對糧食的需求，不像其他商品，最終可能是有限的。如果這樣，改善糧食生產(chǎn)對環(huán)境的影響可能被證明是不遵守與在其他商品生產(chǎn)所取得的環(huán)境利益同樣的限制的實際收益。事實上</p><p>　　至少，在一些傳統(tǒng)食品產(chǎn)業(yè)的整體部分已被對環(huán)境更無害的生產(chǎn)工藝所取代，可以說是代表了環(huán)境永久的改善，即使它并不表明一個走向全面可持續(xù)發(fā)展環(huán)境的總趨勢。但與單一農(nóng)業(yè)的是不一樣的，即使單一農(nóng)業(yè)僅限于一個單一頗為

53、獨特的產(chǎn)業(yè)。</p><p>　　此外，生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論家會認(rèn)為，鑒于消費(fèi)者與生產(chǎn)者之間越來越強(qiáng)的生態(tài)敏感性，更合理的食品生產(chǎn)生態(tài)形式有可能采取進(jìn)一步創(chuàng)新。的確，有這方面，具有先進(jìn)意識的農(nóng)民尋求超越有機(jī)''的形式（拉特羅布和阿康特2000;米尼克2004）。國家有機(jī)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的制定，可以看作是一種尋求真正的可持續(xù)發(fā)展草根運(yùn)動，并能開啟了另一個全面改善環(huán)境的重振運(yùn)動.（米科爾森2001a）。一些運(yùn)動積極分子

54、正試圖設(shè)計新的生產(chǎn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，使人們幾乎不可能進(jìn)行大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)，從而有利于當(dāng)?shù)厣鷳B(tài)可持續(xù)的小規(guī)模生產(chǎn)。生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論可以說，是這一進(jìn)程的一部分。有機(jī)對真正的生態(tài)可持續(xù)生產(chǎn)可能只是一個中途站。當(dāng)然，有機(jī)運(yùn)動可能最終超過任何創(chuàng)新而追求其利潤。</p><p><b>　　總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　單一生產(chǎn)理論和生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論都為環(huán)境改善發(fā)展提供了精辟的觀點。在有機(jī)生產(chǎn)實踐

55、和尋找國家認(rèn)可的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的形式制度發(fā)展過程中，有大量的經(jīng)驗證據(jù)可以支持其任何觀點。社會運(yùn)動，消費(fèi)者，企業(yè)家和政府的協(xié)同行動比常規(guī)做法更有利于環(huán)境改善，如生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論家預(yù)測農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)。但也有證據(jù)表明，在國家與資本結(jié)合的情況下，在在追求擴(kuò)大利潤和生產(chǎn)的過程中，有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)破壞了一些對環(huán)境的原有的承諾。</p><p>　　雖然這種分析并不使我們明確得出由生態(tài)理論和農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化理論家提出的關(guān)于長期生態(tài)環(huán)境的結(jié)論，但是不僅為農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)

56、業(yè)化，也為整個社會提供了一個寶貴的機(jī)會來實行有機(jī)案例。這是很難看到有機(jī)生產(chǎn)如何增長和驗證創(chuàng)造的.單獨標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有助于驗證的生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化理論的結(jié)果。如果事實確實對糧食的需求是有限的，真正有利于環(huán)境的不斷改善，在生產(chǎn)實踐便可實現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　但在更廣義的辯論上，單一農(nóng)業(yè)理論對在宏觀層面的生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化的失敗的主張是沒有被充分的反駁?？偟恼f，資本主義仍然主張經(jīng)濟(jì)持續(xù)擴(kuò)張。雖然此案可有鑒于食品工業(yè)內(nèi)部需求和局限性，這不是大

57、多數(shù)其他商品的情況。在這種情況下，利潤將會繼續(xù)驅(qū)動炳支持投資和生產(chǎn)的擴(kuò)大化。在某些情況下，這些生產(chǎn)可能比以往的生產(chǎn)更環(huán)保，但是，只有只有實際限制消費(fèi)者的需求和對利潤的追求的情況下?？梢园l(fā)現(xiàn)，如果增加對未來有限資源的提取，對生態(tài)系統(tǒng)增加更多的污染物，任何環(huán)境都有不可能改善。我們可以在農(nóng)業(yè)的生產(chǎn)中尋求創(chuàng)新的辦法，從而超越有機(jī)。但是要實現(xiàn)一個行業(yè)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展仍有許多不足。此外，在目前的社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)背景下，由于生態(tài)收益的迅速的破壞，我們正朝著生態(tài)