Slashdot Mirror
Stewart Brand on 'Environmental Heresies'
FleaPlus writes "The MIT Technology Review has an article predicting where the mainstream of the environmental movement may likely reverse its collective stance in the next ten years. The four areas discussed are population growth, urbanization, genetically-engineered organisms, and nuclear power. The article is written by Stewart Brand, known for creating the Whole Earth Catalog, the WELL online community, and the Long Now Foundation. Brand also has some interesting comments regarding the sometimes-conflicting interaction between romantics and scientists in the environmental movement. There's an online debate between Brand and former DOE official Joseph Romm on TR Blogs." Frankly, unless humanity decides to undergo a massive collective personality change of not being consumption-focused, I don't see much other way around these particular issues. What we all need is an Arthur to keep us depressed and sleeping in darkened rooms to lower energy consumption.
And also it assumes that we do no reprocessing, and we make no use of thorium. There's enough thorium on Earth to keep the breeder reactors running for... well, as near forever as you need it to be.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Regardless of where you fall on the Social Security kerfluffle, there is one lovely bit of silver lining; here we see a leader thinking outside the box of his term.
Now, what we need is some intellectual judo to throw this outburst of leadership into other (possibly more) useful directions.
Folks, they never put seatbelts into cars until the likes of Ralph Nader proved that safety sells.
Hybrid cars, not these <expletive> SUVs (that Jesus surely would've eschewed) are what we should endorse.[1]
Focus on the facts, not the hormones. Disagree agreeably, compassionately, and, above all, think. Live in the now, but consider the longer term, please. While I like TFA in general, I wonder whether the polarization of the camps into granola heads/propeller heads that this sort of article can engender is helpful.
You will not be charged for this pep talk.
[1]For the record, I bought a PT Cruiser because the Honda model lacked cargo room when last I shopped.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Unless the odd grammar above somehow changes the meaning of the sentence, I think Marvin was who you were going for there...
As long as I'm nitpicking, when I think of "an Arthur" I think of http://www.thetick.ws/car8.html
Profit-minded? Sure, no doubt that exists in corporate management. But there are real scientists with philanthropic goals doing the actual work here. You don't think these guys know what they're doing? They're *very* careful now when introducing new strains to the environment, and don't just do so willy-nilly. These are guys like Norman Borlaug, a Nobel peace prize winner, who've worked tirelessly to successfully introduce new strains of high-yeild, disease-resistant crops to needy people. Do you think *he's* profit driven? The man's more than 90 years old and hasn't even retired. And regardless of effects on the ecosystem, it ultimately comes down to choosing whether or not to save millions upon millions of human lives.
It's an excellent article, refreshing. As a person of greenish hue, I've certainly moved my stance on nuclear power over the last few years.
However I'd take issue with a couple of points.
My degree is in Biological Sciences, specializing in genetics, and while I am quite happy to eat GM food on health grounds, to say that rejection of the technology on environmental grounds is pure romanticism is overly harsh.
Back when I was doing my degree, (in the late 80s, just as the first GM plans were being worked on) we were well educated on the potential perils of introducing novel DNA or combinations of DNA into an Eco system.
History is replete with examples of novel organisms that have been set loose into the environment as a biological control or source of food or some-such. Australia (the cane toad etc. etc.) and other island ecosystems provide good example where the results have not be as anticipated and in cases pretty grim.
The course looked in some detail at the potential problems of GM.
Today people would generally not introduce a foreign organism into the wild.
"Yes but regular selective breeding is creating new genotypes and phenotypes all the time".
They are correct. However in my view the potential risk of GM falls somewhere between the two cases. The degree of novelty involved with GM is greater than selective breeding but less than foreign species introduction. The risk is proportional to the degree of novelty, in my opinion.
So there is an enhanced risk - how much? I'm not sure. But I have yet to see many compelling reasons to embrace the additional risk.
It shocks me that you even have to ask this question, but Ok, here's some of the items off the top of my head:
The list goes on, and is actually quite huge. There are ethical, legislative, and technical hurdles involved, but let's not try to pretend that this is in any way being done "just because", or for purely selfish reasons. This is potentially one of the most important steps man will take since the initial cultivation of crops.
The geographic requirements for nuclear power plants and long term nuclear waste storage are just about opposite.
Didn't read the article, did you? Go find the paragraph about flouridation.
Let me lay this out in short sentences. Herbicide resistant crops need less herbicide. That's not good for the chemical companies, but bad. Simultaneously, it has a net positive impact on farmers, food, and the environment.
Let me explain by analogy. I'm not a farmer -- but I do raise roses as a hobby. As you no doubt know, rose bushes are fundamentally unhealthy organisms which only thrive with massive doses of fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide, so those of us who raise them know all about this.
Except for one thing: what you think you know isn't true. Older roses do require lots of support to thrive. More modern roses, with their huge flowers and bizarre growth patterns...don't. They've been selectively modified to resist the blights and infestations that killed older plants. They use the calcium in the soil more efficiently, and so don't need as much. They're stunningly healthy plants, designed to be raised in low maintenance gardens by amateurs.
As a result, if I'd grew the modern frankenplants, I'd spend more on the plants to start with, but far less on chemicals.
The same kind of thing applies in frankenfood. If I raise glycophosphate-resistant wheat, then I can apply a glycophosphate-based herbicide to the fields in quantities sufficient to kill the weeds without affecting the wheat. Guess what? That's less than ten percent of the amount I used to apply to the fields. Traditional preemergence applications had to persist in the soil long enough to affect the broad-leaf weeds, which meant applying enough to resist washing away. Applying postemergence means applying only enough to kill the weeds that are there right now. Monsanto will sell me less herbicide than they used to...not more.
Right here.
You're confused.
I never said, for example, that one of the "achievements of GM [techniques was] growing tasty tomatoes".
What I did say was that GM tomatoes which do not rot would allow us to breed them for taste rather than the ability to survive cold storage.
As for profits... I was making the point that profit and benefit to the consumer are not mutually exclusive, and I cited a fairly large number (certainly more than you responded to) of examples where this is quite certainly the case.
Wave your arms at those windmills all you like.
As someone who knows a lot of what you would call "hippies", let me describe what they live like, since you seem grossly ignorant.
;)
Transportation: The vastmajority of them are either part of a car co-op where they share a fuel efficient car, have a fuel efficient car themselves (often a hybrid), or use public transportation. Distance to shops varies; I know both urban and rural "hippies"
Solar: Solar is out of the budget of most of them; however, the more affluent often do use some sort of renewable energy.
Waste: If they have any land, the majority of them have an organic garden, and compost. Almost all recycle; the net result is very, very little trash. You'd be surprised how little effort it takes once you get into the habit.
In short: you're completely mistaken. You're talking about the lifestyles about a vague class of people that you don't really know.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
"Designed to sell more of their own pesticides"? Genetically modified food reduces the need for pesticides, as well as reducing the amount of farmland we have to use. Perhaps you're thinking of "Roundup-ready" crops which are immune to the plant-killer "Roundup". The thing there, though, is that Roundup is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to kill weeds that I know of, and Roundup-ready crops make it possible to use Roundup instead of less friendly herbicides.
Roundup was already one of the most popular herbicide when roundup-ready corn hit the market. Prior to GM corn being available farmers were applying the herbicide 4-5 time in good years and upto 8 times in really bad years. By using roundup-ready corn and roundup together farmers apply the herbicide at most 3 times befor the corn is tall enough to kill off weeds on its own by preventing the weeds from receiving enough light. The net result for monsanto is $ from both the pesticide and the seeds. Now most farmers, even prior to the advent of GM crops didn't save seeds because they would miss out on the genetic improvements from year to year. Seed companies practiced intensive selection for production traits prior to using GM to improve plant quality. Genes native to the plants confering resistance to mold, insect infestation, and improved growth were combined via controlled polination for decades prior to the GM revolution. The net gain for producers is time. 1 application of roundup as opposed to 4 applications in good years and even better in bad years. As we all know time is money, and as someone who has worked on family run dairy farms, (tip: most large "Factory Farms" are family owned and operated) there are never enough hours in the day to manage animals, crops, employee's, maintenance and the ever increasing paper work needed to run a farm. saving that much time is worth the premium paid for the seeds. Land is finite. Most farms cannot get larger with out buy land off of competitors aready using it to grow the same crops, and often the land is more valuable for urban sprawl than agriculture. The best way to make more money is to improve the efficiency of production via less input costs, or increased production from the same land. Most of the posts i've seen on this page are from the "non scientist" members of the environmentalist movements. Being a tech person is not the same as devoting your life to understanding the problems facing agriculture and attempting to solve them. As a Scientist associated with this problem (i'm a phd student in animals science) I'm constantly frustrated by the ignorance western peopls have concerning their own food supply and the arrogance seen from people despite there admited ignorance. the article may or may not be correct on the other points. I'm not associated with those fields but I am qualified to comment on the validity of the GM topic and they are right on the money
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
All Roundup Ready items must be Roundup Ready or you cannot plant there (roundup stays in the soil).
Please don't spread misinformation.
Roundup is basically a chemical called glycophosphate. While Monsanto-sponsored studies found it to be pretty much non-toxic in animals, as a reflex, I take corporate-sponsored studies with a grain of salt. (Anyone who does not, is foolish).
But while toxic effects are arguable, one thing is not: glycophosphate is water soluable. As such, roundup does *not* stay in the soil. Not past the first rain.
The IP restrictions on GM crops, however, are a legitimate reason for serious, serious, concern.
Should we ban slave-collars for those who willingly, cheerfully, don them?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Another example is hydroelectric. Dams are now causing more greenhouse warming due to their emmissions of methane than they save in reduced CO2 emmissions." It is true Dams emits methane due to the drowned areas it create, but while it does for a while, this emmissions reduces over time has the drowned biologic material is consumed... So thats a short-medium term bad side-effect... So it is good in the long run.
Ironically, coal plants produce far more radiation per MW than nuclear power plants do...and they dump it all into the atmosphere. Most greenies seem ignorant of that fact, or simply skip ahead to the entirely unfeasible "let's use solar/wind/whatever" combined with "live the way I live, or you're immoral scum" arguments.
The environmental extremists deserve about as much consideration as those lunatics from PETA.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
This problem has been solved. The waste is processed into what amount to vitrified glass blocks which have stable storage lifetimes in the thousands of years. There is no way short of intentional refinement for waste stored in this manner to re-enter the environment in the relatively short term, unlike liquid or cannister based storage mechanisms. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that in a thousand years or so, we'll have a lot better idea of what to do with the blocks themselves, if indeed anything need be done. We've only had nuclear power for half a century or so, after all.
The correct choice at this time seems to be a combination of pebble bed reactors, which are highly resistant to serious problems such as meltdown or explosive failure, and vitrified glass waste storage insofar as waste storage turns out to be required. Pebble bed reactors are somewhat different from the reactors we're used to thinking about, particularly in that they repeatedly re-process their own fuel, continually converting "waste" from the previous stage into still more energy.
The primary problem is political and environmentalist fearmongering (to the extent that it is not just ignorance, which I am perfectly will to credit both politicians and environmentalists with.) People will believe anything, especially if it comes with a nice, high energy dose of hysteria.
The secondary problem is that building nuclear power plants -- any kind -- is a long, drawn out proceedure. If we started today, money no object, the public all about supporting it, it'd still be quite a few years before the putative new plants began to benefit the infrastructure. Compound this with the fact that we're not going to start today, or at any time in the foreseeable future, and the fact that money is a severe problem, the public is in no way supportive, and the future for reasonable nuclear energy generation appears mighty bleak.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Aren't people curious about how primitive cultures were able to feed themselves with sharpened sticks?
They didn't. Prior to the agricultural revolution meat only made up 10% of the average persons diet. The other 90% consisted of fruits and vegetables. Humans were lousy hunters but fairly good gatherers.
Even so, starvation was so common it happened once every three years, on average.
AND, if we didn't have so many people, there would be one less argument for both GMO and nuclear.
Feel free to kill yourself for the 'greater good'. I won't stop you.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Simple economics. Farmers are in business to make money. When you are talking about 2000 acres, the cost of everything adds up. When you can turn the sprayer down to half the volume and get the same results as before because you can use a different, stronger poison, that appears on the bottom line.
The typical suburban lawn gets at much chemicals as a 20 acre field. Homeowners care about their green lawn more than the environment, and the cost is so cheap they don't care. Farmers are using much more expensive fertilizer (something that doesn't target their crops), applied more carefully.
Coming from a large US farm background (2000+ acres of corn and soybeans) I can say the GM crops reduce fuel and chemical consumption in many ways.
For instance in the 70's, we used to run mechanical cultivators through the corn at least once and the beans 2-4 times to root out the weeds. (think big tractors). Now, my brothers don't even own a cultivator. They use spot treatments of Roundup and other chemicals to kill the weeds. And believe me, at the cost of Roundup, they experiment all the time with reduced concentrations, spot treatments, etc. Fewer trips, fewer chemicals, less cost to the farmer.
Jim Wildman jim@rossberry.com