Farming
is obviously incredibly important. How
people get their food, what they are eating, and where it comes from impacts
people’s health and the climate for many reasons. There are two main types of farming, and it
is highly debated which one is the best.
Organic and local farming focuses on biodiversity, using little to no
chemicals, and using as little water as possible. Conventional or industrial farming focuses
more on monocultures, high technology like genetically modified organisms, and
producing as much of a certain crop as possible. Both types of farming have some positives,
with the organic and local farming having most of them.
This week I read Dr. Vandana Shiva’s
article “Climate Change and Agriculture” and reflected on how she thought that
agriculture should be done. Shiva was a
proponent of local farming and self-sufficiency. She really made a powerful case for organic
and local farming. First of all, it does
not use many fossil fuels so it will not increase global warming. Second, it leads to local jobs with decent
wages. Third, it uses plants that have
been cross bred for thousands of years and already have desirable traits for
the specific climate that a person is growing in. If the climate changes, they can just grow a
different crop that adapted to the new climate already. Fourth, local farming increases food security
because the food does not need to travel from far away to get to a destination. Finally, the biodiversity of these small
farms can hold more water and can adapt to climate change better than a
monoculture. All of these points are pretty
valid. Additionally, local farming uses
a lot less chemicals than industrial farming, which means that people are
consuming less carcinogens and neurotoxins.
This helps people live better lives, be more productive in work, and
spend less money on medical expenses.
Shiva does a great job selling the
local farming, but I think that she discourages genetically-modified products
too much. She really attacks genetic
engineers, for their claims to be able to find a single gene for
drought-resistance to their incredibly expensive seeds. Although the seeds may be too expensive and
although there is a lot of educated guesses involved in finding a particular
gene of interest, genetic engineering should not be out of the question for
these reasons. Genetic engineering has
the possibility to do great things. It
has the ability to make fish and other animals grow faster, which is very
useful to helping to feed the human population.
Maybe genetic engineering could be coupled with local farming if the
seed prices decreased or if the product provided a much better yield. A better yield does not mean much to me
though if the means to getting there includes creating pesticide-resistant
genetically-modified organisms and dousing our food with chemicals. Just as any technology, genetic engineering
needs to be more socially responsible in its innovations. A drought-resistant plant sounds very useful,
or a plant that grows twice as fast. I
agree that how genetic engineering has been used in farming today is not good
by any means, but it should not be shunned as an industry as a result.
Overall, it is very important to do
farming correctly. Conventional farming
can lead to water pollution and eutrophication downstream, poisoning our food
and water, using excessive fossil fuels for the farming and the transport of
goods, and taking advantage of the farmer.
Organic and local farming can solve a lot of those problems, but may not
provide enough food to feed the human population. I think that the best goal would be to try to
integrate farming into local communities again to help make them
self-sufficient and food secure. Technological
advancements like genetically-modified foods should be encouraged if they are
safe because increasing food productivity is always a goal, unless it endangers
people’s health and livelihood.
Conventional farming should be phased out over time as much as possible,
for its health impacts and lack of food security.
No comments:
Post a Comment