Holistic Health Management for the Biosphere

摘要

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) arose as a holistic and ethical alternative approach torneradicative pest control in agriculture. It is founded on a stronger biological notion than eradicativernpest control. Philosophically, the classical approach to pest control was driven by the male penchantrnfor killing, and as a squarely reductionist and positivist pursuit. On the contrary, IPM philosophy isrncharacterised by a female penchant for preserving, being strongly founded in new ethical andrnecological shift in philosophy, and holistic yet hypothetico-deductive in reasoning. Initially, IPMrndeveloped as an antithesis to the over-dependence on pesticides and an impossible task ofrnannihilating a pest whenever it becomes injurious. IPM methodology became overtaken by anrneagerness to employ systems analysis to a logically impossible end of giant synthetic modelling. Thernless utility and usability of giant models led to development and extensive popularity of analyticrnmodels, semi-hard and soft IPM, and even location-specific appropriate IPM (AIPM).rnPoor usability of giant synthetic modelling is not due to a failure in model building per se.rnDeeper philosophic-methodological weakness in the farthest extension of hypothetico-deductivernapproach lies in the basic assumption of the nature having a universal feature to be captured in a setrnof hypothesis. Ironically, failures in the utility of giant synthetic modelling of IPM therefore resultrnfrom the failure to provide all the predictions necessary for all the circumstances and conditions as arnprelude to successful IPM, which was exactly the objective set forth in the modelling process. In itsrnturn, such an effort may undesirably project entities, tendencies and processes non-existent in naturernor biologically meaningful, hindering to obtain devices and theories, which must have descriptive,rnexplanatory and predictive and decision-making qualities. However, non-availability of models forrnevery single relation for the complex process of an epidemic as well as its decision-making andrnoperations in management does not preclude a holistic attitude for pest management. Differentrnmodels seek to describe, explain and/or predict the sub-processes in as complex a process as anrnepidemic. Holistic approach enables complementing the theoretico-biological reasoning includingrnsituation- and location-specific empirical corrections and modifications in the applicability ofrngeneralised models.rnIPM cannot be a panacea for all pests and in all circumstances. The rationale of IPM impliesrnthat it can work satisfactorily only when the nature, i.e. ecological relation is least disturbed. Thernminimum perturbation of nature is the objective in IPM, which is closest to natural control. IPMrnneither does limit itself to natural control nor rules out any specific method of control. Therefore, arnshift in paradigm is warranted. The theory of co-evolution seeks to explain the origin of weeds,rninjurious pests and parasites, as well as symbionts through long association leading to unilateral andrnmutual dependence between those living together. IPM disturbs the ecological web, albeit as minimalrnas possible. Which implies that if all the organisms in the target ecosystem are not taken care of, thernaltered ecological equilibrium following IPM cannot stabilise. Therefore, unless all or most of thernorganisms excluding the suitable substitutions in an ecosystem are adequately taken care of, nornecological change can sustain, howsoever anthropocentrically desirable it may be. Anthropocentrismrncannot be done away with because there is no use of nature unless it is useful to human. But thisrnanthropocentrism has to be as wide and as futuristic in objective and execution as possible. This shiftrnin paradigm in pest management leads to holistic health management for the biosphere (HHMB) asrnthe new philosophy of pest management in the fields of health and medicine in microbes, plants,rnanimals and human.