- Thread starter
- #591
heirloomgal
Garden Addicted
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
- Messages
- 4,198
- Reaction score
- 13,493
- Points
- 255
- Location
- Northern Ontario, Canada
It is impressive how deeply you think these topics through @Zeedman. Many of your posts here on TEG have given me perspectives I never thought of before, and information totally new to me. I had no idea there existed regions claiming ownership of food plants. Wow. I think you've travelled much more extensively than I have, and you've gardened for many more years than I, so it makes sense that you have all this knowledge.I'm a little lost, as how my post could be so misconstrued as to imply that seed saving & preservation is a form of unethical coercion. Seed saving is purely voluntary, and I can't see how efforts to preserve diversity in food plants could "be seen as horrifically criminally evil if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint". There are zealots within the movement, as there are within any topic where fame or a book deal can be used to personal advantage... but those efforts do no harm, and no one is forcing people to grow something against their will.
It is a tragedy that expressly because seed saving is voluntary, and because too many eggs are often held in a single precarious basket, that many unique varieties are continuously being lost to extinction. What happened to Glen's sweet potato collection is an example of how vulnerable some varieties are. Government seed banks, and NGOs like SSE, can't save them all. The question of whether we should save them all involves the value we place on any unique life form, and what their loss could mean for the future.
Where I do see harm being done is when a region or ethnicity claims exclusive ownership of a food plant, and uses the power of force (law) to prevent others from growing it. That is no different philosophically than patenting a food plant, and punishing those who grow it without permission. IMO anything which restricts the rights of others to grow & eat the food of their choice is unethical.
"After all the most efficient way and place of keeping a variety around is in it's place of origin. But what happens if no one there wants to keep growing it."
There is no denying that the best way of preserving an heirloom, is to continue growing it at its source. But what happens when the children either move away, or choose not to grow it? At that point, there are really two choices: abandon it to extinction, or preserve it elsewhere. Forcing people to grow it at its point of origin is an option being proposed by no one. The philosophy of seed saving is that while the present generation doesn't choose to grow something, their children - or others - may choose differently. It's about preserving that choice, not eliminating it.
In many ways, the seed saving movement is a response to coercion. The power of governments & corporations has been used to force heirloom varieties out of commerce, at the expense of traditional varieties grown for generations. Just because something is not suitable for large scale cultivation - or doesn't generate huge profits for seed companies - doesn't make it worthless. To the contrary, as many gardeners know, many of the varieties rejected by commercial agriculture are not only well suited to garden culture, but may be more flavorful & nutritious when carried straight from garden to table.
The thing about heirlooms (old OP's I guess) being kept where they develop, for someone like me in a northern climate in a country where much of the land is uninhabited due to permafrost and an inability to grow food, we wouldn't be eating much without moving them around! Most of the vegetables I eat regularly are from very far away; carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, all the herbs. Lots. I did read once about how varieties are inclined to change expression due to being grown in new climates and pressures, but I see that as just how nature operates. It is the nature of the sands of time to shift.
Yes, that's something I hadn't thought out so clearly. Especially considering that one of my seed saving intentions was as an inheritance for my children. They can bring the seeds wherever they settle with their own families someday.The philosophy of seed saving is that while the present generation doesn't choose to grow something, their children - or others - may choose differently. It's about preserving that choice, not eliminating it.
Yes, yes, yes! To me this is a HUGE motivating factor! While I do appreciate commercial agriculture and the food security that goes with it on certain levels, I also think to rely on commercial interests to grow all our food puts us, of course, in a vulnerable position. That is such a huge topic, but after having worked with several people who had escaped the collapse of their country in Europe during the 90's, it was eye opening to hear their stories of having lived with no real functioning food stores. Things can get unglued in a country pretty fast under certain circumstances, and gardening skills in that context are survival skills. Seeds are really a kind of freedom.as many gardeners know, many of the varieties rejected by commercial agriculture are not only well suited to garden culture, but may be more flavorful & nutritious when carried straight from garden to table.