I discovered an interesting book called "Pilgram on the Great Bird Content" by Lyanda Lynn Haupt. It sounds like a fascinating story about nature, birds and Darwin's unique character, which covers important scientific, philosophical and emotional issues related to evolution and nature.
Although I haven't read it, I have read the first chapter which was absorbing and thought provoking. You can check it out online too.
I'd love to buy it but I've already just bought Jane Goodall's "Harvest for Hope and have a million other books to read. Harvest for Hope is "easy to read" in the literary sense, but tough emotionally. Besides all the environmental damage our food production systems cause, there are some horrific stories of cruelty to animals. But she does at least give positive alternatives and ways to take action. All I can say is, buy organic when you can. It's better for your health, the environment and animals. Although it may be more expensive, I wonder if it really would be if other farmers were not subsidised by the government for their inefficient and cruel ways of farming?
I suppose I'm painting a picture that farmers are all evil when they aren't (except those that torture animals!). It's tough to make a living from farming, so even those that do like the idea of conservation still want to make the most money that they can out of their land so that they can feed their family, educate them, etc. It makes you wonder if feeding 6 billion people is really viable?
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leo Tolstoy
Friday, August 25, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
What's the big deal about GMO foods?
I must admit that I've been rather ignorant about GMO's for a long time now. I couldn't really understand what the big deal was about. After all we have been modifying animals and plants through selection for thousands of years. True, some of the results aren't great: cows' udders are known to cause them pain, persion cats can't eat properly because of their flat faces, etc.
I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are
1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.
2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.
3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.
4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.
5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.
Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.
Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!
It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?
I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are
1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.
2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.
3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.
4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.
5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.
Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.
Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!
It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?
Friday, August 04, 2006
The rights of owning land
Today was the 4th day at my new Biodiversity Planning job and I am loving it! everything about it... the beautifal natural surounds, the passion of the people and the subject matter. To remind you, I am providing technical support for a project which aims to produce conservation plans for several important and threatened biodiversity areas in the Cape.
Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.
I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!
Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.
I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!