So this is it. Our philosophy. I write it slightly differently from the previous PortiaSun philosophy. This is because some critics of it, for want of a better vocabulary or their misunderstanding of my language, choose to label it “Luddite”, “Communist” or even “irresponsibly idealistic”. At the time I thought this terrible – that somehow our message had been completely misrepresented by my prose. But on inspection, I found much of the criticism came from representatives of the biotechnology industry, scientists with vested interests in the commercialisation of their work, self-confessed technocrats and a smattering of abusive individuals who chose to remain anonymous; it was the best politics lesson I ever received.

Maybe this was a good sign – what we were saying was upsetting the right people. However, we are not “Luddite”. We are not opposed to industrial progress or new technologies as this label would suggest; thus dashing the sole critique of many commentators on any alternative thought. No, we believe whole-heartedly in industrial progress and new technologies. The confusion for some may arise with our ideas on what constitutes progress and what the development and application of new technology should mean to the collective symphony of global society.

Like “Luddite”, the label “Communist”, and the common undertones associated with this branding, is also pretty far off the mark. We believe in private as well as public property, the rights of individuals to express their thoughts, the place in society for diverse cultures and the respect for such cultures heritage and ties to the land, together with the benefit of working towards a common good. Clearly, this is not communistic. Nor is it capitalist “democratic” – I use quotes due to the extreme ideological construction of the concept in the face of the relativism of its application in reality. And maybe this is where further confusion for some arises. Simply put: we believe there is scope to look beyond simple classifications by doctrine – and we understand the relativism and motivations that hide behind the comfortably simplistic application of such classifications.

We agree that some may find our philosophy “irresponsibly idealistic”. Presumably the tag of irresponsibility is to cast distain on the effects our ideals may have on current formats and approaches to development. If one finds that our search for alternatives to development mean that one’s investment in a large scale irrigation system for one’s thousand acre GM monoculture operation is made redundant then yes, more than likely, one may find our alternatives irresponsible. If one were a grain futures trader left without a liquid underlying market because of the loss of such a monoculture, one may also find such alternatives pretty irresponsible. And if one were a public representative (a politician possibly) who relied on corporate derived campaign funding for one’s very existence (in a “democracy” of course) from the Agribusiness Multinational that sold the GM seed to the farmer, processed his production and also employed the said Futures trader to arbitrage using the information gleaned from such a vertically integrated business structure, one may also find our alternatives irresponsible, and maybe go so far as label them Luddite or even communist. A community of majority world family farmers that consequently establish a domestic market for their produce, possibly leading to long-term food security, might think differently. For a community of small holders neighbouring, or in direct price competition with said monoculture, that subsequently enjoy better local markets and increased community security, the same rules apply. As always, it depends on one’s perspective.

And so to idealism. It is understandable that we have been labelled idealistic. New thinking always is. It requires imagination yet understanding of the current situation, and then the ability to put our minds to developing sincere alternatives based on this thinking. We see this as being best achieved while working with a diverse range of people also interested in alternative approaches to, and appreciations of, development. We believe in our collective ability to make things better, to explore alternative thought and to question current developmental ideologies – and we aim to communicate this.

This is our philosophy.