Agroecology and the ethics of innovation in agriculture
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v22i2.9621Keywords:
Capitalist institutionality. Coloniality. Sustainable livelihoods. Caged ethics. Living Well paradigm.Abstract
Capitalism makes impossible ethical conviviality among all living beings. Constituted by a global power pattern —Coloniality— that acts upon race, knowing, being, nature, the capitalist institutionality is hostile to ethics for it conflicts with practices —patriarchal, racial, ethnocide, epistemicide, ecocide— that threaten of extinction life on Earth. Only a counter hegemonic institutional order can establish other livelihoods in which ethics is constitutive of conviviality in a community of life, as proposed by the science of Agroecology. Capitalism disguises itself under the idea of development to devour captive markets, abundant raw material, cheap labor, obedient minds, and disciplined bodies, while violates the human, the social, the cultural, the ecological, the spiritual, the ethical. As development = capitalism, Agroecology will fully contribute to the happiness of rural peoples and to the sustainability of their livelihoods only the ‘day after development’: when the Living Well paradigm, with its ethics of innovation, overcomes the institutionality ordered to capital by other oriented to life.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2017-05-15
Issue
Section
Agroecologia
License
The submission of originals to this journal implies the grant, by the authors, of the printed and digital publication rights. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication. Authors may only use the same results in other publications clearly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication. Because we are an open access journal, we allow free use of the articles in educational and scientific applications provided the source is cited under the Creative Commons (CC-BY) license.How to Cite
Agroecology and the ethics of innovation in agriculture. (2017). Redes , 22(2), 352-373. https://doi.org/10.17058/redes.v22i2.9621