Stewardship of Our Natural and Human Resources

2 comments
                 Do the differences between industrial agriculture and sustainable agriculture affect us enough to make a definite choice?  Industries have spent their share of profits advertising and promoting industrial agriculture as “the only method to sufficiently feed the world” or “the cheapest way to produce food efficiently”.  But in order to do so, only a select amount of crops that have the ability to reproduce quickly under agribusiness technology will be grown.   On the other hand, sustainable agriculture offers us a wider variety of food choices by helping maintain diversity in the crops being produced.  So is industrial agriculture as prominent as those who support it say it is?  Will a movement for sustainable agriculture actually deal with any problems industrial agriculture can cause?
                Industrial agriculture, through its intensive use of pesticides and fossil fuels as a result of modernized technology has its negative impacts on the environment.  In addition, farmers and labourers do not exactly earn the salaries that one may expect, harvesting the food of the world.  In fact, the industrial system has “enclosed” farmlands around the world so that the crops produced could be used as high-priced export crops rather than being served as food for local populations.  This pertains to the problem of industrial agriculture being “the only method to feed the world” because in this situation, third world countries are continually being stripped of food grown on their own lands.  The new technological inputs being brought into the third world has also increased the production costs of farming rather than reduce them and because there is constant worldwide competition in sales, farmers are given less income.  Many of the benefits that industrial agriculture has been said to bring has actually not proven to be.  But on the other hand, has sustainable agriculture been proving itself to be the working alternate?
                Sustainable agriculture is said to offer three main goals that industrial agriculture has not been successfully accounting for – environmental health and diversity, economic profitability, and social and economic equity.  In summary, it looks to promote harmony between agriculture and social responsibility so that the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is not obstructed.  In reality, the growth rate of the global human population is rapid, but not something the agricultural industry can’t keep up with.  The fact is that every year, there is enough wheat, rice, and other grains being produced to provide every person with 3 500 daily calories; food production per capita in the last 35 years has also grown 16 percent faster than the world’s population (U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization).  If this is true, then why is world hunger always an issue?  This is because industrial agriculture has denied equal distribution of food it is producing to farmers and their families.  Whether sustainable agriculture alone or a balanced approach between that and industrial agriculture is the correct choice, the world knows for certain that relying solely on industrial agriculture will not be doing justice for present and future generations.


Blogs that I have commented on:

Brian Tsui's blog
Patrick Lin's blog

 
Bibliography
"Biodiversity: Biodiversity home." FAO: FAO Home. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/en/>
"Can Industrial Agriculture Be Sustainable Agriculture? | GreenandSave.com | Green News, Tips, and Services for saving money, energy and the planet.." GreenandSave.com | Green News, Tips, and Services for saving money, energy and the planet. | Saving Your Money and the Planet One Household at a Time. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.  <http://www.greenandsave.com/green_news/green-business/can-industrial-agriculture-be-sustainable-agriculture-6985>.
Kimbrell, Andrew. Fatal harvest: the tragedy of industrial agriculture. Washington: Published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology in arrangement with Island Press, 2002. Print.
"Sustainable versus industrial: a comparison - Introduction to Sustainability - Sustainable Table." Sustainabletable.  Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/comparison/>
"What is Sustainable Agriculture?." UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm>

Genetic Engineering - For Health Reasons.. and Good Looks?

3 comments

Since the existence of males and females in our world, there have been babies.  Babies are the result of a male and a female who have gained a particular interest in each other’s traits, both physical and mental, and figure that combining them into one individual would create the optimal person in their eyes.  With this idea in mind, would parents really be worried about their unborn child enough to “design” them?  Parents would pursue the option to design their children only to take out the possibility of their children obtaining undesirable genes.  However, it is important for them to remember that they mated with their partners because the “desired” genes were available.  Therefore, what level of fear is there really, for the baby of two loving parents to end up having traits that are disliked?  It is true however, that a partner could have an inherited family disease or a lethal gene that would not want to be passed down to his or her child.  For this reason, Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) can be used to screen embryos for genetic diseases and only implant selected embryos back into the mother’s womb.  For the reason of possibly saving the life of an unborn child, genetic screening is a plus.

PGD or IVF technology was only used 50 times in 2009

Most people could gladly accept genetic engineering when it comes to health care, but when asked about engineering solely for good looks, a majority if not all, would disagree with the idea.  There is also a fear of creating an even larger gap between the rich and the not so luxurious in society since processes such as PGD or InVitro Fertilization (IVF) are available mainly to those who have big bucks.  The humans holding the most desirable qualities would then begin to appear only in the higher-ups and issues in the society could arise.  What this also says is that millions of people who do have various health issues or do not visually look up to par are regarded as lesser.  Certainly, no one would want this idea to be floating around.  The most common ethical issues that are debated involve ideas of “playing the role of God” and how it is simply not up to us.  However, I believe that parents should have the reproductive freedom to decide upon what they want to do with their embryos. 
At the moment, scientists are only able to manufacture qualities such as eye and hair colours and so worries about a super human race belonging to the rich can be forfeit.  I’d only be worried about doubled IQs, or something like Schwarzenegger babies - qualities that would cause imbalances in our society.  It is also important to note that many genes have more than one effect.  For example, some rat experiments resulted in improved learning and memory powers, but also a greater sensitivity to pain.  For this reason, the above qualities are very unlikely even for the future, and so genetically engineering for cosmetic reasons really doesn’t pose a large issue at all.

In my opinion, even if God-like abilities such as determining the outcome of a child are presented to parents, I would expect them to use it only in urgent, health-related situations rather than for cosmetic reasons.

Works Cited

:. "CTV British Columbia - Screening could create 'designer babies' - CTV News." CTV British Columbia | Home - Breaking News, BC News, Vancouver, B.C., Sports, Entertainment, Traffic, Weather, Contests. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101108/bc_ctv_investigates_making_babies_5_101108/20101116?hub=BritishColumbiaHome>.
"Designer Babies - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
"Designer Babies: A Right to Choose? | Wired Science | Wired.com." Wired.com . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/
"Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
Lee, Ellie. "Debating 'designer babies'." PCF - Pro-Choice Forum homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrreliss7.php
"What is a designer baby?." Bionet - New discoveries in life sciences - Explore the science and debate the issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont1.htm

The Boreal Forest, and Everything Good.

3 comments
“Everything the light touches, is our kingdom.” –Simba
 (except we want to think of him as an invasive human species!)

Hello Humans.  Millions of years ago, there existed only bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants, all in their vast and wondrous kingdoms.  Their autotrophic selves allowed them to thrive without the need to devour other organisms for energy and thus, biodiversity was well… plentiful.  Soon (being a few eras later), the introduction of animals would come to impact the other kingdoms significantly, one of them being Earth’s beloved plants.  As humans and a member of Kingdom Animalia, our heterotrophic traits unfortunately force us to eat up those poor, but tasty organisms below and around us in the interconnected web of life.  It is an elegant truth that we and many other animals would not be here, “loving” the world if it weren’t for them green autotrophs, working days without end to provide us with our favourite, breathable gas, oxygen.  Let us also not forget their mindboggling ability to photosynthesize materials into simple sugars which supply us with energy nonetheless!  Their generosity is something that we are surely all aware of and that is why human intervention has been focused completely on protecting and conserving their ecosystems, correct?  Well, not entirely.  The truth is that although a majority of us understand that all living organisms depend on biodiversity, it isn’t always the same number of us that see the need to take on healthy actions or on the flip side, stop our destructive ones.  It wouldn’t be completely accurate if one was to say that humans changed the face of the Earth.  But it is still fair to know that we are often the largest cause for change in all kingdoms, around the world. 
If we were to look at the terrestrial face of our Earth, we would notice a lot of green, and then identify it as forests, some in patches and some stretching throughout a whole hemisphere (Yes, that makes sense!  But the point is, there are lots of trees!).  One massive stretch of trees can be found here on our home soil.  The Boreal Forest is home to millions of animals and other organisms of numerous species and spans 5.9 million square kilometres from Alaska to Labrador – that’s about 25% of the land area of North America!  Just imagine the amount of carbon it provides us with seasonally!  It plays a critical role in controlling global climate change.  In addition, the Boreal Forest contains wetlands that store and filter millions of litres of freshwater.


The heart of this vast forest runs directly through Ontario, being almost two-thirds of this province’s landmass.  For this reason, it has become a popular breeding ground for songbirds and can be described as Ontario’s Songbird Nursery.  There are many different organizations, projects, and initiatives that are up and running and concentrate their efforts to preserving the boreal ecosystem.  The Boreal Songbird Network is a network of conservation and birding groups interested in raising awareness in the U.S. and Canada about the importance of the Boreal Forest to North American migratory birds.  The Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI) works with other conservation organizations, First Nations, and industries to help work out conservation solutions and policies. 



With over 300 different species of birds in the boreal ecosystem, permanent residents such as the Black-Capped Chickadee rely on the mixed forest habitats.


Believe it or not, Canada isn’t doing such a bad job protecting the boreal ecosystem.  In fact, Canada is the world leader in forest conversation!  It really has been a combination of efforts from organizations around the nation, as every province has helped minimize industrial development in their boreal regions.  The Far North Planning and Protection Act was passed in Ontario with the help of Premier Dalton McGuinty to protect at least 225 000 square kilometres of the northern boreal forest.  This would help Ontario fight climate change, protect ecosystems, and ensure First Nations have control over land-use decisions as well. 

Three-quarters of the boreal ecosystem in Canada remains intact, making it one of the largest natural areas left on the planet.  Canada and the world realizes that the Boreal Forest is a globally significant ecosystem.  Do you?



I have commented on:

Marlon Bridge's blog about Toronto and the Environment as well as
Mary Chiu's blog about conservation, reintroduction, and the California Condor!
References:
" Boreal Forest | Campaigns | Protect | Ontario Nature." Ontario Nature. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/campaigns/boreal_forest.php>.
Darveau, Marcel. "Canadian Boreal Initiative." Canadian Boreal Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2010. <http://www.borealcanada.ca/index-e.php>.
"Hinterland Who's Who - Canada's Boreal Forest." Hinterland Who's Who. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. <http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=354>.
"Welcome to the Boreal Songbird Initiative." Boreal Songbird Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2010. <http://www.borealbirds.org/>. 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)