Technology, Ecology and Us

In this technological age, is there a fix for everything?  The answer is clearly no.  Unfortunately, people still die from diseases we haven't found a cure for yet, though many more live much longer than in times past due to the advances we have made.  In fact, this latter observation has been in the news in fairly recent weeks in that there has been much discussion about helping people suffering with terminal and degenerate conditions to die.  Don't most (all?) in this unfortunate position live so long largely because of our technological, medical and social advances?

Hadn't really intended to start that way but was thinking about the way we (humans) separate ourselves from the ecology of planet Earth and wondered whether this was largely because of our technology.  In ecology, we talk about carrying capacity.  That is, the number of individuals an area can sustain with available resources.  We overcome this by, for example, moving food around the country, or across the globe.  As far as humans are concerned, I suspect we can live at far greater densities, exceeding the 'natural' carrying capacity, than would be the case without technology.

With population increases, the pressure on available resources will increase - will our technology allow this to take place so that we put even greater pressure on the Earth's carrying capacity?  There must come a point when technological solutions fail to squeeze yet more from the Earth.  With each passing day the need to develop sustainably becomes even more pressing, though I doubt most governments will tackle this in any meaningful way, though I live in hope!

Let Them Eat Meat!

Sustainable Development concerns itself with the future while living and working in the present.  Perhaps, the best known definition is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."  This definition from "Our Common Future" recognises that what we do today influences tomorrow.  Of course, we all want to see progress but we need to examine the way societies are developing to ensure the future isn't being threatened.  We humans are a part of the environment not separate from it; we are entirely dependent on the ecosystem services provided by our planet.

Our Common Future was published in 1987, some 27 years ago, a lifetime ago for some, though the ideas presented are as relevant now as they were then.  Since publication, the human population has grown somewhat and is still growing.  Critics will say that we have managed in the past, so we will cope in the future.  Maybe, maybe not.  Yes, we have found mechanisms to deal with problems and issues but the planet Earth is a finite resource for all practical purposes.

Food is, of course, essential to the developing population and maintaining food security is important for all nations.  Though I don't know the exact proportion, I suspect most food is provided by agricultural systems of one kind or another around the world.  Some food is provided by something akin to hunting, albeit hunting on an industrial scale - fishing is the best example that springs to mind, though even some fish are now farmed.  We all need a balanced diet to survive, of course, and a significant part of that diet for many people will be meat.  For some, there is an expectation for all to be able to have meat every week and in all probability everyday.  OK, why might this be an issue?

Agriculture requires land, people require land, an increasing population requires more land, the increasing population needs to eat - land is the key here.  Animals do not, of course, convert all the food they eat into animal flesh that can be eaten.  The amount converted can be as low as 10%, though this will, of course, vary.  Maybe it would be better to eat the plants than the animals?  Actually, I don't think it's quite that simple in that we would not be able to survive on the diet a cow can live on - we don't have the mechanisms animals with cellulose-rich diets have to deal with this particular carbohydrate.  Of course, the land could be used to grow crops other than the grass we may use to feed our farmed ruminants and that may be the way to go.  I suspect the Earth can support more vegetarians than carnivores (thinking of human dietary preferences here), so reducing meat consumption is likely to be one way of improving the sustainability of a rising population.  I doubt we would be able to turn all into vegetarians, at least not in the short term.  We can all aim to reduce our meat consumption, which would help us to move in the right direction and reduce the short-term pressure on land use.  Another option might be to eat more insects, which, I understand, are more efficient converters of plants to animal protein!

I know this is a complex issue and I will be returning to this and related issues in the future.

While thinking about this issue this caught my eye form Guardian Shorts: Planet Carnivore: Why cheap meat costs the earth (and how to pay the bill) by Alex Renton.  I haven't read it and am not specifically recommending it but go for it if you think it will be interesting to you and you can afford the £1.99 or $2.99.  This makes it cheaper in dollars!  Maybe this is due to tax differences, though I don't think we pay tax on books in the UK!?

GM or not GM, that is the question!

Reading an item in the Guardian today made me think about this topic.  The title: "Owen Paterson: Embrace GM or risk becoming 'museum of world farming'".  My views on this are no secret and I have alluded to them before, but many may think they fly in the face of my 'green' credentials.  Not too keen on the word 'green' to indicate someone or something that can be described environmentally friendly as it is all too easy to bandy about it trips off the tongue so easily.  After all, what does being 'green' mean?  For that matter, what does it mean to be or act environmentally friendly?  May discuss those in more detail at another time.  For now, I just want to say that this is not as simple as you may think.  This has been shown, for example, with some of the discussions over the proliferation of wind turbines - surely, they are 'green', producing 'green' energy, that is, energy that does not contribute huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere.  Some are not keen on the way they look (personally, I like the look of them); birds flying into them and being killed may be a problem in some places - what is most important, conserving the birds, some of which may be threatened species, or harnessing the energy locked up in the movement of air?  There have also been concerns expressed about the impact on environments of other sites of alternative power generation, such as those proposed at the mouths of estuaries.  Not so simple, is it?

Anyway, back to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.  We use the abbreviated term 'GM' to refer to these and I have certainly seen products proudly proclaiming they are GM free, pretty much associating that with being 'green' or providing 'natural' products.  I would argue this is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.  I would also argue that the use of appropriate GMOs may prove to be essential in being truly 'green' and environmentally friendly!  Has that made you stop reading?  If you think that appears to be in contrast to having a love for the Earth and everything in it, or in some way anti-environment and not in tune with the principles of sustainable development, can I ask you to suspend judgement until you have read the discussion that follows?

Firstly, virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified - go into a wild meadow at the time grasses are producing seeds and you will notice they are very small and can almost be carried by the wind.  Contrast that with what you had for breakfast this morning, or at least the raw materials you breakfast was made of.  There is a strong possibility this included grass seed, maybe it was the grasses that made the bread, the cornflakes or the porridge that had been genetically modified to make them worthwhile to cultivate, or maybe it was something else.  Did you have rice for your dinner?  Another grass.  This is just one simple example.  Virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified, and that goes as much for the animals as the plants.

So what's the problem?  I guess this primarily stems from GMOs specifically referring to organisms that have been genetically manipulated in the laboratory to express certain features - they have been, if you like, tailored to meet the requirements of the client.  Some media have referred to them as "Frankenfoods", or similar, encouraging the negative emotions many have.  Some environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, have campaigned against GMOs, including the direct action of trashing experimental fields.  That is, in my view, totally inappropriate as the whole purpose of the trial fields is to establish any potential issues - what are these people and organisations afraid of?  Be guided by the science!

I am not saying all GMOs should be produced or that there are no potential issues, there could be.  For example, what impact will GM plants have on wild plants and the local ecology?  There is also the issue of patented genes, meaning that a farmer could be prosecuted if they keep some seed of a harvest to sow for the following year, or any seed produced may be sterile so this can't happen.  This last point is an issue, particularly in less affluent nations, but it is not unique to GM crops and can also be the case with those that have been genetically modified through the more 'natural' method of selective breeding.  The first point of impact on the Earth's ecology is also a potential issue but, again, is not unique to GMOs, with many of the 'naturally' genetically modified agricultural systems having huge negative impacts.  Of course, in the UK we tend to think of farmers as custodians of the countryside as much of what we treasure about our "green and pleasant land" is to be found on and around land that is under cultivation or feeding the animals we put on the plate to feed ourselves.

GMOs could help us feed a growing population without destroying all we hold dear.  We may, for example, be able to produce plants that are diseases resistant or able to make better use of nutrients or require less water, or have greater yields, or have a longer shelf life - these may all contribute to reducing the inputs while increasing the outputs - in other words, they may be important as part of the mix of different foods we produce; they may become necessary to lead a truly sustainable existence.  I say 'may' because I don't think they will be the answer to all woes but because science, as has been the case up to now, has, and will continue to have, an important role to play in feeding us and maintaining food security.