University of Northern Iowa University of Northern Iowa
`
`
`UNI ScholarWorks UNI ScholarWorks
`
`Dissertations and Theses @ UNI
`
`Student Work
`
`1992
`
`A pretension of place: The industrialization of corn belt A pretension of place: The industrialization of corn belt
`
`
`agriculture, 1940-1965 agriculture, 1940-1965
`
`Philip Jeffrey Nelson
`University of Northern Iowa
`
`Let us know how access to this document benefits you
`
`Copyright ©1992 Philip Jeffrey Nelson
`Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd
`
` Part of the Agribusiness Commons
`
`Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
`
`Nelson, Philip Jeffrey, "A pretension of place: The industrialization of corn belt agriculture, 1940-1965"
`(1992). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI. 694.
`https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/694
`
`This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It
`has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses @ UNI by an authorized administrator of UNI
`ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uni.edu.
`
`Offensive Materials Statement: Materials located in UNI ScholarWorks come from a broad range of sources and
`time periods. Some of these materials may contain offensive stereotypes, ideas, visuals, or language.
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 204
`
`

`

`A PRETENSION OF PLACE:
`
`THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CORN BELT AGRICULTURE, 1940-1965
`
`An Abstract of a Thesis
`
`Submitted
`
`In Partial Fulfillment
`
`of the Requirements for the Degree
`
`Master of Arts
`
`Philip Jeffrey Nelson
`
`University of Northern Iowa
`
`May 1992
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 204
`
`

`

`ABSTRACT
`
`This study concerns both the causes and effects of the
`
`industrialization of Corn Belt agriculture during and after World
`
`War II. Although industrialization is certainly a fully cultural
`
`phenomenon, with a multiplicity of competing and augmenting causal
`
`agents involved in its genesis, industrial processes are the most
`
`salient and identifiable bases of modern economies.
`
`In their
`
`application to the Corn Belt's agricultural structure, techniques of
`
`industrial farming revolutionized almost every aspect of the
`
`agricultural experience. Farm size, machinery, power sources,
`
`capitalization, supplies, and populations have all changed in response
`
`to an almost single-minded adherence and adoption of a mechanical(cid:173)
`
`chemical based technological vision of what security, progress, and
`
`. utopian ideals entail for American culture.
`
`This study identifies and analyzes five capital inputs which
`
`were fundamental to the previously mentioned massive transformation
`
`of Corn Belt agriculture. First, the development of engine-powered
`
`machinery allowed farmers to fully manifest and implement endemic
`
`cultural drives to achieve larger output and greater control over the
`
`land.
`
`Second, the application of substantial quantities of commercial
`
`fertilizers stimulated larger yields from the same amount of land.
`
`The ability to manipulate crops and the larger environment was
`
`enhanced and forced up production levels. Third, monocultural
`
`cropping patterns grew along with farmers' increasing capacity to
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 204
`
`

`

`"mass produce" field crops. Agriculturalists generally countered
`
`rising pest and disease threats with synthetic pesticides discovered
`
`shortly before, during, and after World War II.
`
`Fourth, crop technology itself changed with the emergence of
`
`hybrid varieties, especially corn and soybean hybrids, and caused
`
`some farmers to abandon livestock raising altogether. Specialization
`
`produced greater risks.
`
`Fifth, the remaining livestock producers changed to intensive,
`
`high energy, chemically-laden factory methods. They sought total
`
`control over livestock environments and the animals themselves.
`
`Developments in breeding, feeds, animal drugs, and confinement
`
`~structures drove this shift.
`
`This study suggests a link between a whole host of problems and
`
`the adoption of the industrial farming system.
`
`It has exacerbated
`
`difficulties associated with the traditional "farm problem" and has
`
`created new problems such as polluted ground water and disrupted rural
`
`communities. Finally, it is felt that this system represents a mere
`
`pretense at place construction, and therefore is inherently unstable
`
`and destructive of agricultural social ecology.
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 204
`
`

`

`A PRETENSION OF PLACE:
`
`THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CORN BELT AGRICULTURE, 1940-1965
`
`A Thesis
`
`Submitted
`
`In Partial Fulfillment
`
`of the Requirements for the Degree
`
`. Master of Arts
`
`Philip Jeffrey Nelson
`
`University of Northern Iowa
`
`May 1992
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 204
`
`

`

`Copyright by
`
`PHILIP JEFFREY NELSON
`
`April 24, 1992
`
`All Rights Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 204
`
`

`

`This Study by: Philip Jeffrey Nelson
`
`Entitled: A Pretension of Place: The Industrialization of Corn Belt
`
`Agriculture, 1940-1965
`
`ii
`
`has been approved.as meeting the thesis requirement for the Degree
`
`of Master of Arts.
`
`O'j---23~ 12
`Date
`
`Dr. Charles E. Quirk, Chiir
`
`Date
`
`Dr. David A. Walker
`
`J-/ - &.3 _ q ~-
`Date
`
`Dr.USoanne A. Goldman
`
`
`
`5 -11- ~2-
`Date
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 7 of 204
`
`

`

`ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
`
`iii
`
`The author would like to thank the members of the thesis
`
`committee (Dr. Charles Quirk, Dr. David Walker, and Dr. Joanne Goldman)
`
`for their time and effort in the reading and suggestion process. Their
`
`editorial, intellectual, and humanistic comments were greatly
`
`appreciated. Special thanks go to Dr. Quirk and Steve Quirk for
`
`valuable computer assistance. For understanding about the demands of
`
`time, the author thanks Dr. Donna Maier. The entire history department
`
`at the University of Northern Iowa deserves credit for making it a
`
`place conducive to good work.
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 8 of 204
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF TABLES.
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`Chapter
`
`I
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`II THE MATRIX OF PLACE ..
`
`III TECHNOLOGY TAKES COMMAND
`
`IV
`
`BY YOUR MACHINES WILL YE BE KNOWN
`
`V PLANTFOOD . . . . .
`
`VI
`
`THE MAGIC BULLETS . .
`
`VII THE MACHINE IN THE PLANT
`
`VIII ANIMALS INTO BIOMACHINES:
`LIVESTOCK RAISING. . . .
`
`THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF
`
`IX· EPILOGUE--A NEW SENSE OF PLACE
`
`BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`iv
`
`Page
`
`V
`
`vi
`
`1
`
`8
`
`28
`
`54
`
`87
`103
`
`125
`
`147
`
`178
`
`181
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 9 of 204
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES
`
`V
`
`page
`
`Selected Equipment Totals in Iowa, 1930-1964. . . . . . .
`
`69
`
`Persons Supplied with Food by One
`Farmworker, 1945-1965 . . . . . .
`
`Number of Farms, Average Acre Per Farm and
`Percentage of Total Area of Iowa Farm Land
`
`Yields Per Acre of Four Important
`Crops, 1870-1970 . . . . . .
`
`Quantities of Selected Farm
`Inputs, 1950-1970 (USA)
`
`Prices of Selected Farm Inputs,
`1950-1970 (USA) . . . . . . . .
`
`74
`
`75
`
`88
`
`92
`
`93
`
`Public Expenditures in Millions of Dollars for Research
`and Extension in Agriculture, 1915-70
`. . . . • • .
`
`108
`
`Table
`
`4.1
`
`4.2
`
`4.3
`
`5.1
`
`5.2
`
`5.3
`
`6.1
`
`7.1
`
`Corn Seeding Rates and Hybrid Seed Plantings . . . . . . . 134
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 10 of 204
`
`

`

`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`Figure
`
`1. Multiple Causation Inherent in Associated
`Processes . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`2. Case Tractor Advertisement
`
`3. Advertisement for Gas-Driven Water Pumps
`
`4. Farm Generator Advertisement . . . . . .
`
`vi
`
`page
`
`33
`
`65
`
`66
`
`67
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 11 of 204
`
`

`

`1
`
`CHAPTER 1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`It is a generally accepted scholarly position that American
`
`agriculture became industrialized (most farming types and areas) after
`
`World War II. The adoption of a 11 package 11 of inputs and practices
`
`such as power machinery, synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, hybrid and
`
`improved seeds, pre-mixed feeds and feed additives, selected breeding
`
`stock, conservation techniques, and widespread irrigation has been
`
`characterized as an agricultural revolution. Moreover, it has been
`
`called the second American agricultural revolution, to distinguish it
`
`from an earlier period around 1850 when horse machinery was widely
`adopted. 1
`Each revolution caused dramatic gains in. productivity and tended
`to exacerbate the chronic problem of American agriculture after
`1850--overproduction. Related to the new industrial mode of
`
`manufacturing and the "farm problem" of overproduction, is the
`
`continuing depopulation of the countryside and growing pressures on
`
`the viability of an entire way of life--small-town America. A fourth
`
`and final theme is the relation of modern agriculture to environmental
`
`degradation.
`
`It is at the intersection of these four themes,
`
`industrial farming, the farm problem, rural decline, and the
`
`agricultural contribution to the environmental crisis, that we seek
`
`explanations for our agricultural and cultural problems and some
`
`semblance of a sustainable farming regime for the future. Ecologically
`
`sound and locale-appropriate farming practices would have the
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 12 of 204
`
`

`

`2
`
`potential to bring agriculture into harmony with both the natural and
`
`human cultural environment.
`
`The rapid industrialization of Cornbelt agriculture during and
`
`after World War II reflected a pervasive, fundamental, American
`
`cultural characteristic--a near obsession with power and dominion over
`
`nature--catalyzed by war and pre-war social, economic, and political
`
`events, and fueled by the predominant vehicle of the American quest
`
`for control, technology. Onto an agricultural system already out of
`
`balance (by virtue of continued overproduction and low prices)
`
`capital-intensive farming methods made it a costly self-employment
`
`occup~tion to enter. Technology, as the predominant expression of the
`
`American worldview and style of work, operated (to some extent on an
`
`unconscious level) in the post-war era to alter the relationship
`
`between farmers and the land.
`
`In so doing, farmers, with growing
`
`agribusiness and governmental involvement, made more difficult the
`
`balancing of agricultural production with ecological sustainability.
`
`In short, agricultural place was prorogued. Problems with the
`
`traditional farming system persisted and were joined by new
`
`difficulties. The present thesis argues that neither the agricultural
`
`community nor the larger society engaged the 11farm prob l em 11 on an
`
`essential and fundamental level because it 11 bought into 11 the
`
`intoxicating promises of progress, prosperity, and plenty offered by
`
`the application of industrial technology to agriculture.
`
`Farming has always been an uncertain activity full of risks even
`
`in the best of times. Devastations caused by the weather, pests, and
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 13 of 204
`
`

`

`3
`
`low markets were problems seen as not amenable by government or any
`
`other institutions. Before 1900, farmers rarely called for direct
`
`governmental intervention to the advantage of agriculture only,
`
`although they lobbied for cheaper money and lower freight rates which
`would have aided other business and labor groups. 2
`Between 1900 and 1920, farming experienced its 11golden age 11 as
`
`farm prices rose and the difference between farm and non-farm prices
`
`held stable. Excess production was not burdensome because most was
`
`able to be sold on the world market. World War I added to a growing
`
`food demand and prompted a rise in agricultural prices. A boom
`
`psychology set in and caused an escalation in land prices and expansion
`
`in short-term debt. Markets contracted after the war, however, and
`
`markedly lower farm prices hit hard those who had recently expanded
`
`their ~perations. Debts, taxes, inflation, and low prices combined
`
`to make the 1920s a period of agricultural depression, while the rest
`of the economy was still expanding. 3
`During the 1930s the farm sector fell even deeper into
`
`depression. Foreclosure, drought, grinding poverty, and extremely
`
`low commodity prices forced farmers to turn to government for help.
`
`The federal government responded with expanded credit opportunities,
`
`commodity loans, and acreage controls. Farmers took action for
`
`themselves by organizing protest movements like the Farmers• Holiday
`
`Association, and by starting producer and consumer cooperatives owned
`
`and originally managed by farmers. Angered by the inequity between
`
`farm and nonfarm prices in the 1920s, most rural residents turned to
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 14 of 204
`
`

`

`4
`
`the federal government for relief. Traditionally, farmers had opposed
`
`all monopoly control including governmental intervention, which was
`
`considered as monopolistic as any consortia of businesses.
`
`Many of them now swung over to the view that agriculture must
`adopt policies and practices similar to those used by 11 big
`business 11 and thus put itself in a position to deal on more
`even terms with other groups in the economy.4
`
`Beginning in the early 1940s, the government's farm policy of
`
`reducing output turned to the opposite extreme of full and growing
`
`production. Various inducements to expand supplies of food and fiber
`
`were offered including guaranteed price supports. Output grew
`
`enormously and agricultural officials feared a post-war slump in farm
`
`prices. Some drop in prices did finally occur in 1949, but the
`situation was quickly reversed by the advent of the Korean War. 5
`Some of the traditional farm problems such as instability of
`
`tenancy and fluctuation in land values were not pressing difficulties
`
`in the 1950s and 1960s. The adoption of mechanized and factory-like
`
`farming methods accelerated, providing healthy surpluses. Growing
`
`conditions generally remained favorable, but the period was dogged with
`
`doubts concerning the possibility of a series of bad crop years
`
`threatening the adequacy of food supplies.
`
`In retrospect, this fear
`
`was a needless one because production was at record levels and yields
`per acre were beginning their steep rise. 6
`For much of the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. farmers tended to see
`themselves as victims of their own productivity--taken for
`granted by consumers, neglected by government, and constantly
`losing faith in themselves. 7
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 15 of 204
`
`

`

`5
`
`During this period the farm problem was generally perceived as
`
`one of low farm prices, excess capacity, assets fixed in agriculture,
`
`and immobility of labor out of farming. The nature of the problem
`
`altered to a more encompassing view as new factors were injected into
`
`the agricultural scene. Human-made risks such as government
`
`regulations, inflation, international markets, policy swings, and the
`
`actions of foreign governments complicated the traditional farming
`approach which emphasized slow change, financial conservatism, 11making
`do 11 , and waiting out bad times. The cost-price squeeze intensified
`and pressured many middle-sized farms. They neither had the scale of
`
`operations nor the off-farm income of small farmers. The survival of
`
`the family farm became more than just rhetoric as young farmers
`
`experienced greater difficulties entering farming. Those who had been
`
`in farming for some time tended to identify with governmental programs
`
`no longer operating or substantially modified.
`
`High worldwide demand in the 1970s cast American agriculture in
`
`the role of savior in the fight against world hunger and poverty.
`Farmers were told to plant 11fence row to fence row. 11 Production
`expanded again and large investments in land, machinery, and automated
`
`livestock handling equipment drove both short- and long-term farm debt
`
`to record heights.
`In the 1980s, the agricultural roller coaster ride
`culminated in the 11most severe crisis since the depression. 118
`Having weathered the most recent farm crisis with their numbers
`
`reduced, but a semblance of stability regained, farmers continue to
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 16 of 204
`
`

`

`face many of the same aspects of the farm problem which have haunted
`
`previous generations.
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 17 of 204
`
`

`

`7
`
`NOTES
`
`1. Wayne David Rasmussen, Agriculture in the United States: A
`Documentary History (New York: Random House, 1975), 2919.
`
`2. Murray R. Benedict, Can We Solve the Farm Problem?: An
`Analysis of Federal Aid to Agriculture (New York: The Twentieth Century
`Fund, 1955), 3-4.
`
`3. Benedict, 5-12. Walter Wilcox, The Farmer in the Second
`World War (Ames: The Iowa State College Press, 1947), 1.
`
`4. Benedict, 7.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Ibid., 13-14.
`
`Ibid., 14-15.
`
`7. Andrew Desmond O'Rourke, The Changing Dimensions of U.S.
`Agricultural Policy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
`1978), 1.
`
`8. O'Rourke, 1. See David Rapp, How the U.S. Got into
`Agriculture: And Why It Can't Get Out (Washington, D.C.: Congressional
`Quarterly, 1988), for a discussion of agriculture in the 198Os,
`11 Reaga.nomi cs, 11 growing f edera 1 i nvo 1 vement in farming, and the II cheap
`-food pol icy. 11
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 18 of 204
`
`

`

`8
`
`CHAPTER 2
`
`THE MATRIX OF PLACE
`
`The American 11 farm problem 11 has been of concern to agricultural
`
`observers and participants for more than a century. Perennial
`
`difficulties such as overproduction, rural poverty, a cost-price
`
`squeeze, instability in tenancy, and the survivability of rural
`
`communities continue to the present. The dwindling number of full-time
`
`farmers face economic, social, and political uncertainties which go
`
`well beyond the ordinary vagaries and built-in riskiness of
`
`agricultural production. Family farms confront the economic situation
`
`of seemingly being forced to either "get bigger or get out" of farming.
`
`Since World War II, an additional issue has taken on critical
`
`importance and has added to the overall farm problem. Concern over
`
`~•"'
`
`-environmental pollution and degradation caused by the industrialization
`
`of agriculture has arisen not only on the farm, but also in urban and
`
`suburban areas.
`
`In the Corn Belt, drinking water supplies increasingly
`
`contain a frightening mixture of agricultural chemicals, both in
`
`surface and underground water sources. Chemical residues in and on
`
`various foods have become objects of heavy criticism and fear in an
`
`increasingly health conscious society. Noxious odors from large
`
`feedlots close to residential areas have aroused opposition to local
`
`livestock operations and to the very principles of confinement
`
`livestock raising. Hence, there no longer exists the old boundary
`
`between town and country, especially when environmental problems tend
`
`to spill over one milieu to the next with great ease.
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 19 of 204
`
`

`

`9
`
`The industria1ization of agricu1ture in the 11developed 11 countries
`
`of the world has meant a growing human intervention in the environment.
`
`Rising dependence on fossil fue1s, a shrinking genetic base, and
`
`warnings about unhealthy food all point to the expanding interface
`
`between agriculture and ecology. The term agroecology has been coined
`to address 11 • • • not only natural perturbations [of ecosystems] but
`also the myriad indirect effects of human economic and social
`activities. 111 So defined, agroecological analysis touches on a
`multitude of topics and foci from soil chemistry and conservation to
`
`agricultural labor statistics. Rural sociologists have done a great
`
`deal of agroecological work lately by stressing the importance of the
`
`physical environment in the examination of social phenomena. They
`
`have aided in the reemphasis of agriculture as an inherently
`person~land relationship. 2 Historians have also concentrated on
`locales and how behaviors and beliefs toward the natural world and
`farming have changed over time. 3
`observers of sustainable agroecological development have combined
`
`In addition, other interested
`
`agricultural, environmental, creative, moral, and spiritual concerns
`
`in concepts such as stewardship, local knowledge, decentralization,
`
`homeostasis, appropriate technology, and a balance between rural and
`u·rban pl aces. 4
`These concepts are important and heuristic because they challenge
`
`our awareness of the innate wholistic, systemic, and interactive nature
`
`of agroecology. Such an understanding calls for a theoretical basis
`
`that satisfactorily explains the constantly changing, but enduring
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 20 of 204
`
`

`

`10
`
`"farm problem" complex. Noted writer and farmer Wendell Berry defines
`
`this state of affairs as a "crisis of culture."
`
`The concentration of farmland into larger and larger holdings
`and fewer and fewer hands--with the consequent increase of
`overhead, debt, and dependence on machines--is a matter of complex
`significance, and its agricultural significance cannot be
`disentangled from its cultural significance.
`It forces a profound revolution in the farmer's mind: once his
`investment in land and machines is large enough, he must forsake
`the values of husbandry and assume those of finance and technology.
`Thenceforth his thinking is not determined by agricultural
`responsibility, but by financial accountability and the capacities
`of his machines. Hhere his money comes from becomes less
`important to him than where it is going. He is caught up in the
`drift of energy and interest away from the land. Production
`begins to override maintenance. The economy of money has
`infiltrated and subverted the economies of nature, energy, and
`the human spirit. The man himself has become a consumptive
`machine . . . .
`The mind of a good farmer is inseparable from his farm, or,
`to state it the opposite way: A farm, as a human artifact, is
`inseparable from the mind that makes and uses it. The two are one.
`To damage this union--as industrial agriculture now threatens to
`do irreparably--is to damage human culture ,at its root.5
`
`This assessment speaks to the interdependent, pervasive and
`
`ultimately, the moral nature of human social difficulties. The farmer
`
`.is not something apart from the soil, the natural world, but is
`
`immersed and enmeshed in its ongoing rhythms and processes. The
`
`seasons and their attendant activities follow one another in a natural
`
`progression; livestock breed, gestate, give birth, and mature according
`
`to the processes inherent in their life forms. This fundamental union,
`
`noted by Berry, exists in agriculture between culture and the natural
`
`world. Farmers are intimately tied and connected to other life in an
`
`organismic manner, which breaks down the notion of separateness and
`
`the dualism of objective/subjective.
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 21 of 204
`
`

`

`11
`
`This union is dynamic, continuous, gestaltic, and experiential
`
`in much the way Alfred North Whitehead meant when he spoke of the unity
`
`of experience in consciousness. The environment is active in the lives
`
`of human beings in terms of its physical demands and the subjective
`
`reactions it engenders within consciousness. We know reality as we
`
`experience it--as process. All things are in process, unfolding and
`
`developing in transition and change. We cannot meaningfully escape the
`
`necessity of the process to be active and shape the welter of
`
`information (thoughts, feelings, intuitions, impressions, sensations,
`
`valuations, and memories) which constitutes our experience. We make
`
`sense out of the world in a process that goes well beyond bare
`
`Cartesian logic, because understanding is not merely the breaking down
`
`of reality into discrete, analytic units, but also a putting-together
`
`into a_,,,.creative, synthetic totality. Human beings are in the process
`
`of molding their environment as they themselves are being molded by
`
`the corrrnunity of life based on happenings of the past, events of the
`
`present, and expectations for the future. Apropos of the preceding
`
`statement is Karl Marx's notion that 11men make history, 11 but not under
`conditions of their own choosing. 6
`The concern for process, organism, and wholistic thinking was
`
`part of a larger revolution in thought in the twentieth century. The
`
`philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche, William James, and Henri Bergson
`
`reflected the trend toward relativism which extended well beyond
`Hegelian idealism and Darwinian naturalism. 7 The natural sciences
`and then the social sciences responded with cosmological tendencies
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 22 of 204
`
`

`

`12
`
`toward viewing scientific knowledge (later on social knowledge as well)
`
`as dealing not so much with representations of nature, but with
`
`socially constructed interpretations of existence. The publication of
`
`Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ushered in the
`
`contemporary period of limited epistemological claims on the truth.
`
`A dominant scientific paradigm tends to define what is known about
`
`nature at any given time--a relative truth but still a truth about
`nature. 8 One observer has noted, however, that "more recent social
`constructivist accounts question the assumption that science is about
`9 They argue that scientific
`knowledge is a socio-historical construct negotiated out of differing
`
`nature as it exists outside us. 1
`
`'.
`
`interpretations and interactions over how the world should be
`
`creatively reproduced. lO
`
`Knowledge produced by the social sciences has even more
`
`constraints on it. Theories of social reality reflect an involvement
`
`in the reality as the objective of explanation. As Anthony Giddens
`
`posits:
`
`There are no universal laws in the social sciences, and there will
`not be any--not, first and foremost, because methods of empirical
`testing and validation are somehow inadequate but because, . . .
`the causal conditions involved in generalizations about human
`social conduct are inherently unstable in respect of the very
`knowledge (or beliefs) that actors have about the circumstances
`of their own action . . . . The theories and findings of the
`social sciences cannot be kept wholly separate from the universe
`of meaning and action which they are about . . . . The point is
`that reflection on social processes (theories, and observations
`about them) continually enter into, become disentangled with and
`re-enter the universe of events that they describe. No such
`phenomenon exists in the world of inanimate nature, which is
`indifferent to whatever human beings might claim to know about it.11
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 23 of 204
`
`

`

`13
`
`This should not be construed as implying that there is no
`
`"otherness." The physical, material world cannot be denied its
`
`reality. Yet, social constructivist theory claims that the "natural
`
`world" cannot be adequately explained and understood without reference
`
`to human organization and human consciousness. Nature is seen as an
`
`active agent of change and a "partner 11 in negotiations over the
`
`construction of reality. Plant breeding is an example of an active
`
`negotiation between plant life (its genetic inheritance) and
`
`scientific researchers; the final 11deal 11 cut in the bargaining is an
`
`altered plant and a new range of technical applications and
`implications. 12
`The science of ecology and its environmental spinoff disciplines
`
`bear a special burden in the sense that they claim unique knowledge
`'
`of nature. But "a social-constructivist perspective implies that we
`_,,,
`can never refer to nature--something knowable that exists outside
`us--unproblematically. 1113 Ecology, too, is a negotiated, socially
`constructed set of interpretations with its own political and moral
`
`considerations built in. General laws and totally "objective" truth
`
`would seem to be unachievable.
`
`In this view, Barry Commoner's three
`
`laws of ecology in his book The Closing Circle or Eugene Odum's
`
`Fundamentals of Ecology are necessarily reduced to ethical or cultural
`critiques rather than laws universally true for all times and places. 14
`Nevertheless, these works and others in ecology and related disciplines
`
`are tremendously important because they carry substantial normative
`
`influence, and they show how" . . . some segments of society engage in
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 24 of 204
`
`

`

`14
`
`practices that adversely affect other members of society and have the
`
`potential to injure the future quality and survivability of the
`planet. 1115
`The challenge for the solution of agroecological problems such
`
`as the farm crisis, according to the social-constructivist approach,
`
`arises not in our skill in knowing nature, but in our ability as
`
`negotiators and our capacity to listen to the needs of our fellow
`
`human beings and the needs of nature. All experience is political-(cid:173)
`
`debate, conflict, bargaining, and compromise are endemic to the human
`
`condition.
`
`Insofar as we are apportioned in social and governmental
`
`structures and units, we choose overarching organizing principles
`
`(paradigms) as cultural guidance systems. This is done on the basis
`
`of political choices, not epistemological ones. The problems of
`'
`agriculture require analyses that uncover their genesis and show how
`_,,,
`we can work with nature and each other to avoid similar and new
`problems in the future. 16
`The elucidation of the development of agroecological problems
`
`forces awareness of the "predicament of existence." While existence
`
`can be very perplexing indeed, we are compelled by our very natures to
`
`survive. Still, humans not only try to maintain existence, but try
`
`to survive in the best way possible.
`
`John Bennett asserts that the
`
`"basic value [of humanity] is survival at a reasonable level of
`security. 1117 Survival requires adequate amounts of healthy food and
`water, climatically appropriate clothing, and shelter from the
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 25 of 204
`
`

`

`15
`
`elements. These requisites combined with interpersonal harmony and
`
`safety provide a basic degree of security.
`
`The procurement of the above condition of security obviously
`
`necessitates the use of the physical environment. As one of the
`
`species at the top of the food chain, human beings alter their
`
`environment by feeding on animals and plants lower on the chain and
`
`by extracting other organic and inorganic resources from the natural
`
`world. Our ancestors learned quickly that through the use of tools
`
`they could lower the riskiness of their lives. They fashioned simple
`
`machines to increase their supply of food, clothing, shelter, and
`
`items of esthetic, leadership, and religious interest and significance.
`
`Through the use of tools, as extensions of their bodies, people grew
`
`in their ability to change the face of the planet. Tools, however,
`'
`were undoubtedly not used haphazardly, but played roles in larger
`
`~
`
`plans, schemes, and strategies designed to enhance survival.
`
`Humans have always been active agents of change and builders.
`
`Survival needs helped stimulate the development of strategies and tools
`
`which impacted the physical environment in and near settlements. To
`
`the extent that we are social beings, strategies and tools are
`
`presupposed by the existence and politics of community. Today for
`
`example, the institutional structure of agriculture initiates,
`
`modulates, and mediates much of the flow of information and discourse
`concerning the policies and technology which are eventually adopted. 18
`People have historically been involved in the construction of their
`
`realities by means of interaction with their locales, creation of tools,
`
`Exhibit 1133
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 26 of 204
`
`

`

`16
`
`and the planning and execution of survival strategies. But the
`
`historical record shows many instances of agroecological carelessness
`
`and degeneration. Methodologists seek to enunciate general causal
`
`connections between human behavior and the condition of the
`
`environment, applicable over long periods of time and also to
`
`11 discrete, 11 individual events.
`
`If we treat technology as a highly
`
`significant, critical manifestation of the process