Wednesday, July 15, 2009

4 Environmental 'Heresies' ~ Stewart Brand

On population growth and urbanization. Really now??? What a different tune he sings then and now. How? I can't wrap my head around how slums are good for cities. I'd postulate that slums are good for politics and politcal parties. The basic premise of urban planning has always been to eradicate slums and resettle squatters. A fundamental policy in many decent governments has always been to create affordable public housing or at least ensure that its people have access to loans to own their homes in the country of their citizenship. That sense of home ownership, I believe, creates the first layer of the social fabric.

On genetically engineered organisms. GEOs or GMOs. I'm a little swayed by his subtle suggestion about how organic farming isn't really good for the environment. As much as I'm a proponent of all things organic and free-range, these words are getting tiresome. It's a leeetle grating to be constantly reading about sustainable food, sustainable produce and free-range veal, chicken, beef, etc. I cannot decide if choosing to consume organic food sourced from sustainable farms is about me wanting to focus on getting healthier food into the body or it's because I genuinely care about the environment.

So if we could mass produce genetically engineered food, that would solve alot of starvation problems, wouldn't it?

I don't have concrete opinions on the portion about nuclear power. Not a scientist- I haven't studied it very much either- certainly not by reading the journal articles. The enormous power to be harnessed is equally balanced by its mega production of by-waste. If uranium is the new poster child to replace oil, we'll have to remember that it is a finite resource. Likewise, it will poison the environment bit by bit.

7 comments:

Dawn said...

I don't have a problem with GMO foods per se.

Interestingly though we were just discussing this because of our weed problem and because we're trying to go the organic route.

Monsanto came up with a pesticide that is supposed to be safe because it affects a special enzyme in plants that people and animals do not have (http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/goodfor13.html). THEN they came up with a crop that is resistant to roundup. Someone in the comments section of TED mentioned that this does in fact give them a huge advantage because then farmers have to go back every year and buy the seeds and Roundup from Monsanto.

So this does mean that smaller farms probably can't afford these specially engineered seed, unless something is done to make it affordable to them. (http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops).

Monsanto has also been apparently taking some farmers to court for using their seed, or even in cases where seed flew into their field accidentally - http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

So WILL GMO crops help with starvation, or is it just another business decision?

One of the solutions that has been offered of course is for people to go vegetarian/eat less meat. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

Kikare said...

There are so many debates, and there is no absolute truth - there can't be any final conclusion until it's all over, but then it will be too late.

A locally produced tomato (grown in a greenhouse) and an imported tomato (grown in naturally mild climate), which is better? There is no absolutely right answer. The choice depends on what matters to you more in principle. Unless you carry a carbon footprint calculator with you all the time...

From what I have read/seen, Monsanto is a monster.

jazzgal said...

i'm still inclined to buy from smaller farms rather than mass produced genetically altered food. there must be a reason why fruit and food exist in its natural state. *shrug* that's just my opinion. if i can afford it, i will pay more for organic food.

zewt said...

at the end of the day, we will all die at our own hands...

imp said...

dawn: not reading nice things about monsanto.... it's a business entity first and foremost to cater to a niche demand, then a gradual demand. technology hasn't rounded its sharp edges. the go-vegetarian option is now being put forth quite strongly.

kikare: exactly. grey areas all still. how on earth to even make an informed decision?!

zewt: we'll not live to see it. whew.

Jo said...

hmm.. this is definitely food for thought.

On consuming free-range and organic produce though, it's purely for health, for me at least.

imp said...

jomel: that's why lor. it's health for me first.