It seems I've touched on a volatile issue here. Please consider this elaboration. Hopefully it will show you that I do consider my thoughts carefully.
With every technological innovation there are consequences. Coal power produced pollution the likes of which had never been seen before; the proliferation of the automobile has contributed greatly to increased greenhouse emissions; and genetically modified foods have been met with great skepticism is most industrialized nations... America being a noteworthy exception, as the nation has embraced it wholeheartedly for the most part.
Indeed, agriculture has been around a very, very long time. And with that experience comes hesitation when introducing something as bold as GMF.
Selectively breeding the best strain of rice or rose or whatever? Great. When chemically asserting our influence on a plant's genetics, fine tuning resistances, making the stalk more hearty, whatever is desired, should not the system in which that plant is introduced be carefully examined and all possible consequences be taken into account, even those of which we have no knowlege of?
When my children come of age, I don't want them to deal with any more problems than they have to. Leave the world better than when you entered it, I've heard so often. Granted, GMC can produce high yields and produce great profits. But what of their affects on their regions? The soil? Groundwater? Neighboring flora and fauna? What of the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers used to nourish these crops? No one can answer these questions with any degree of certainty because we have yet to understand 100% of nature's processes.
Look at the Mississippi River, at the "Dead Zone" where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Is that what we want our kids to inherit?
I'm not broadcasting nameless, shapeless fear, but I do have reason to be concerned. What I am concerned about is the long term consequences of our implementation of modern GMC the likes of which have never been seen in 2000+ years of agriculture, and, specifically, how those changes will affect the health and yields of future crops.
I echo your frustrations, Dave. It's frustrating to watch your country (in my case, the USA) dive head first into something as potentially catastropic as genetic engineering without much resistance from our elected officials.
The smell of money sure intoxicates the body politic, doesn't it? Man, it's frustrating.
Introduced species brought in to stimulate this (profit) or eradicate that ("pests"), have brought about consequences to our generation and those after us, the obvious one being the trampling and eradication of native species that have adapted to their particular region over many generations -- key players in that area's natural system. These are being dominated by "foreigners" -- many of which have made the list -- often with consequences that may not be discovered for many years.
I have family in Hawai'i, and anyone who's flown to or from Honolulu Int'l knows how strict the authorities are there. Fragile, geologically young, natural systems are especially at risk for species introduction, as evidenced by the mongoose (brought in to eradicate another species), as one example. The mongoose has seriously threatened the native bird populations on Oahu and many neighbor islands.
It's fun to tackle serious issues with a touch of humor. Make no mistake, though. This is a very serious issue that is being taken very seriously, especially by those fragile island regions most threatened by these invasions, and even by geologically older regions dealing with invasive ivys and other (introduced) pests that cost money to deal with.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. My power authority is Pacific Power (http://www.pacificpower.net), which covers most of the mid to lower Willamette Valley. I recently moved into the area, and I was shocked: the standard energy package pie chart showed that 60-80% of the power would come from ``dirty'' sources.
I agree: we have the Bonneville Power Administration that could generate enough hydro-power to run most of the western states. However, with deregulation, much of that hydropower is being -sold- to markets where the base price is higher: ie CALIFORNIA. As a result, Oregonians, even with the BPA in our collective back yard, are not reaping the environmental benefits of having the BPA: California is.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems I've touched on a volatile issue here. Please consider this elaboration. Hopefully it will show you that I do consider my thoughts carefully.
With every technological innovation there are consequences. Coal power produced pollution the likes of which had never been seen before; the proliferation of the automobile has contributed greatly to increased greenhouse emissions; and genetically modified foods have been met with great skepticism is most industrialized nations ... America being a noteworthy exception, as the nation has embraced it wholeheartedly for the most part.
Indeed, agriculture has been around a very, very long time. And with that experience comes hesitation when introducing something as bold as GMF.
Selectively breeding the best strain of rice or rose or whatever? Great. When chemically asserting our influence on a plant's genetics, fine tuning resistances, making the stalk more hearty, whatever is desired, should not the system in which that plant is introduced be carefully examined and all possible consequences be taken into account, even those of which we have no knowlege of?
When my children come of age, I don't want them to deal with any more problems than they have to. Leave the world better than when you entered it, I've heard so often. Granted, GMC can produce high yields and produce great profits. But what of their affects on their regions? The soil? Groundwater? Neighboring flora and fauna? What of the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers used to nourish these crops? No one can answer these questions with any degree of certainty because we have yet to understand 100% of nature's processes.
Look at the Mississippi River, at the "Dead Zone" where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Is that what we want our kids to inherit?
I'm not broadcasting nameless, shapeless fear, but I do have reason to be concerned. What I am concerned about is the long term consequences of our implementation of modern GMC the likes of which have never been seen in 2000+ years of agriculture, and, specifically, how those changes will affect the health and yields of future crops.
I echo your frustrations, Dave. It's frustrating to watch your country (in my case, the USA) dive head first into something as potentially catastropic as genetic engineering without much resistance from our elected officials.
The smell of money sure intoxicates the body politic, doesn't it? Man, it's frustrating.
Great article. Thanks Ant.
Introduced species brought in to stimulate this (profit) or eradicate that ("pests"), have brought about consequences to our generation and those after us, the obvious one being the trampling and eradication of native species that have adapted to their particular region over many generations -- key players in that area's natural system. These are being dominated by "foreigners" -- many of which have made the list -- often with consequences that may not be discovered for many years.
I have family in Hawai'i, and anyone who's flown to or from Honolulu Int'l knows how strict the authorities are there. Fragile, geologically young, natural systems are especially at risk for species introduction, as evidenced by the mongoose (brought in to eradicate another species), as one example. The mongoose has seriously threatened the native bird populations on Oahu and many neighbor islands.
It's fun to tackle serious issues with a touch of humor. Make no mistake, though. This is a very serious issue that is being taken very seriously, especially by those fragile island regions most threatened by these invasions, and even by geologically older regions dealing with invasive ivys and other (introduced) pests that cost money to deal with.
Sorry about that typo. I feel quite silly for having let that one fly by. It is most certainly 74 square meters. My apologies.
It most certainly is 74 square meters and some change. Sorry about that blatant typo -- stuff like that is really embrassing.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. My power authority is Pacific Power (http://www.pacificpower.net), which covers most of the mid to lower Willamette Valley. I recently moved into the area, and I was shocked: the standard energy package pie chart showed that 60-80% of the power would come from ``dirty'' sources.
I agree: we have the Bonneville Power Administration that could generate enough hydro-power to run most of the western states. However, with deregulation, much of that hydropower is being -sold- to markets where the base price is higher: ie CALIFORNIA. As a result, Oregonians, even with the BPA in our collective back yard, are not reaping the environmental benefits of having the BPA: California is.