Talk:Cultivator

Stand-alone cultivators

It seems that stand-alone cultivators also exist. These are useful as they reduce the energy requirements (less weight). See Eole-tract, a pneumatic motor (quasiturbine) powered cultivator made by Pierre Bouhours/ICAM institut catholique des arts et des métiers (refs= http://unjardinblanc.xooit.fr/t4994-L-eole-tract-la-bineuse-ecologique-attend-son-developpement.htm ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.245.242 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrational Exuberance

"irrational exuberance"? Does this qualify as WP:NPOV? Cwelgo (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, because it's an objective assessment of that era's attitudes. The phrase was popularized by Alan Greenspan in the 1990s to describe a stock market bubble (see article irrational exuberance), and people today recognize objectively that he was correct in that assessment. The phrase is being used in a similar way here. Agronomists today would look at some of the exuberance of the 1950s and 60s and say that yes, it was naive, and also irrational. So it's not "biased" in the sense that NPOV policy fights against. — ¾-10 00:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to think of other analogies, and my mind runs to how, in the 1950s, many people thought that nuclear automobiles were just around the corner. Another example of being irrationally exuberant in regard to "technological triumph". Same with the idea, somewhat more recently (as recently as the 1980s), that "we'll just pop antibiotics like candy and feed them prophylactically to livestock, because man has conquered microbes" (...not thinking about the fact that eventually there would be a resurgence of infectious disease via widespread antibiotic resistance, and that if anyone's taking bets on a humans-vs-microbes contest, I like those odds favoring microbes, long-term). — ¾-10 00:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to take exception to two of your examples. Nuclear automobiles were never close to reality, but herbicides have been used (and have worked) for years. While I appreciate your arguments that they may not be as problem-free as once thought, they are still widely used today. Organic farming is in the minority.

The fact that Alan Greenspan used the phrase "irrational exuberence" and may have been correct as it pertains to economics has no connection whatever with attitudes towards cultivation. If you can quote and cite someone who used the phrase regarding herbicides, the phrase may have a place in this article, but until then it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. My $0.02. Cwelgo (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but it looks like you're misunderstanding how the words are being applied in the article. I agree with everything you said above about herbicides, and I think we are just taking different levels of affront (maybe that's not the right word—I'm rushing before bedtime right now). I agree that herbicides are important tools of agriculture and the world would be screwed if it stopped using all herbicides tomorrow. The "irrational exuberance" phrase doesn't refer at all to herbicides in general, today—it refers specifically to the attitudes, prevalent in the 1950s and some extent 60s, that Man had conquered Nature and that chemistry was leading Man into Utopia. That sort of thing. A lot of people really did buy into that sort of idea back then, and the term "irrational exuberance" describes it to a tee. It was exuberance, and the exuberance was irrational (because it was utop-ishly pollyanna-ish). It's not referring to anyone's attitude toward herbicides today. I believe today virtually everyone who's truly knowledgeable and rational about agriculture (which excludes a lot of self-righteous, slightly hypocritical crunchy-granola types) views herbicides as you and I do—that is, as tools with both risks and appropriate applications. — ¾-10 04:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

...Besides which, the existing sentences right after the term say as much explicitly. ("... probably will continue to be indispensable to affordable food production worldwide for the foreseeable future; but its wise management ...") — ¾-10 04:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: My thoughts returned to this while I was brushing my teeth this morning ... although I totally disagree that the phrase is misused in this article, I've decided to recast the sentence to avoid using it anyway. You (and maybe others) are bothered by it, and I, while not at all bothered by it, am not "married to it" either (as they say). So maybe just let it go. I'll recast it tonight after work if I don't forget before then ... I think I'll remember. Later, — ¾-10 11:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Update:  Done "imbalance"—that's a much better word here. I changed it. Tip of the hat to User:Cwelgo. — ¾-10 22:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Imbalance" is a good choice. It sounds encyclopedic! Cwelgo (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)