.the human species is living as if it had more than one planet to occupy…”
After reading, "Ringing the Alarm for Earth" and the articles for this week, a previous topic about our ecological footprint on the planet comes up.
Comparing China's population of 1.3 billion with America's 300 million seems as though the impact of China's consumption and waste would be greater.
However,
The average ecological footprint for one Chinese citizen calculated in 2006 is 2.0, meaning that it takes two global acres of resources to sustain each individual. Whereas the average ecological impact of an American is 24. While it is quoted around 6.2 in Beijing, as city dwellers consume more, and while an average of 22.2 was quoted for those in Sarasota, Florida, overall, Americans have about 10 times more impact on resources.
The main point is that the American model is definitely not sustainable and is destroying other life forms, animals and plants to make way for our use and destruction of resources. China is developing rapidly with the Western consumerist model within their country and by means of all the goods they export. As I see it, both and all of us create the problem. The human species is definitely living as if it had more than one planet.
In Ringing the Alarm for Earth," botanist Peter Raven calculates that it would take 3 planets to sustain the population of the world if everyone lived "as comfortably as the Americans, British or French." The main message here that should be broadcast far and wide, particularly in the mainstream media, is that things are not going to be reversed. Rather than going into paralyzing despair about what's happening and what has been done, the choices should revolve around how to stabilize it and how to become fully sustainable.
Are GMOs Worth the Trouble?
It definitely doesn't seem that they are, as this article helps debunk the assertions that GMOs are helping feed more people by increasing yield. I ask what is it that they are actually feeding people and if these foods actually meet intrinsic nutritional needs for healthy, vital lives?
I appreciate this scientist's research and suggestions for prevention to increase production including alternatives such as reducing food waste and reducing consumption of animal products, which in itself takes enormous resources as in raising cattle.
Another comment I find important is noting that ". . . herbicide resistant crops (that) will exacerbate pesticide use." Using GMOs just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum, with unaccountable affects on surrounding crops, insects, plants, animals and the environment.
A PAC commercial based on this article could be run next to the Monsanto ads on T.V. Instead of equating pastoral fields of grain with a nostalgia of a healthy America and feeding the world, they could be juxtaposed with the reality that no more food is actually being produced (vs. conventional breeding). Soils are being polluted and unknown effects of cross-pollination with genetically modified seeds is happening, not to mention the economic and social justice issues around controlling seeds. If only the NRA was behind organic farming . . .
Are GMOs Worth the Trouble?
It definitely doesn't seem that they are, as this article helps debunk the assertions that GMOs are helping feed more people by increasing yield. I ask what is it that they are actually feeding people and if these foods actually meet intrinsic nutritional needs for healthy, vital lives?
I appreciate this scientist's research and suggestions for prevention to increase production including alternatives such as reducing food waste and reducing consumption of animal products, which in itself takes enormous resources as in raising cattle.
Another comment I find important is noting that ". . . herbicide resistant crops (that) will exacerbate pesticide use." Using GMOs just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum, with unaccountable affects on surrounding crops, insects, plants, animals and the environment.
A PAC commercial based on this article could be run next to the Monsanto ads on T.V. Instead of equating pastoral fields of grain with a nostalgia of a healthy America and feeding the world, they could be juxtaposed with the reality that no more food is actually being produced (vs. conventional breeding). Soils are being polluted and unknown effects of cross-pollination with genetically modified seeds is happening, not to mention the economic and social justice issues around controlling seeds. If only the NRA was behind organic farming . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment