- Mahatma Gandhi -
This quote encompasses many different aspects of "need", but what i understood it at first to mean was in the area of food. Apparently we have 1.5 times the food needed to feed everyone on the planet. We have enough food to feed 10 billion people. Why then, is it said that "Almost 1 billion people across the globe will go to bed hungry tonight, 200 million of them children" (USAID, 2013). One of the reasons mentioned in class was the lack of proper transportation channels and regulations to ensure that the food aid reaches the intended receiver, and also the overconsumption of food and also food wastage ( such as through dumping of food or the burning of it to maintain high prices). Interestingly i read online that much food aid ( some which are actually food dumping in disguise, others backed by genuine intentions) is actually detrimental to the poorer countries as the free food drives local farmers and food producers out of business, increasing the market share of the developed countries. I think this observation is an interesting one with regards to yali's question about the question of inequality and how we should solve it - the famous quote "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" comes to mind here. Much of the aid we give to poor nowadays (not just poor countries, just the poor in general) is rather one dimensional and merely "giving them a fish" is a short-term solution with possible detrimental effects. At the risk of sounding offensive, it is like those signs which tells people to stop feeding the animals because they will lose their own abilities to find food for themselves. The problem of inequality is solved not merely by providing mere material support: because the reasons for inequality is the mindset and technology needed to aquire goods, and not the goods themselves. A documentary i saw talked about how after the 2004 tsunami, much of the fishing boats given to the poor fishermen (to allow them to get back on their feet) was instead sold immediately for quick cash.
Well, back to the topic at hand, two of the key factors in the causation of hunger was not mentioned. First is the usage of biofuels, whereby tons of edible food is instead used as a fuel source, touted to be "environmentally friendly" but actually harms the food supply significantly. This also bumps up the price of food commodities and causes it to be less available for the poor. The increase in demand of meat as a food source causes food shortage as much edible grains and crops are instead used to feed livestock, and research have shown that meat consumption is about 8 times more inefficient as an energy source compared to grains. It seems to me that the problem of food shortage might not lie in the lack of transportation channels, but the demands of the developed countries are suppressing the more important needs of the poor. As mentioned in cedric's presentation, affecting the mindset of the developing countries seems to be the more appropriate option to address the problem of food shortage.
We were shown an interesting video which portrayed humans as parasites of the earth, where we plunder earth of its resources, and later on move on to trying to obtain resources from other planets. I felt that it was quite an accurate depiction of what has happened, because our influence on earth has been almost entirely negative, such as in the case of usa where only 4% of the original forests are now left, global warming caused by the human industrialisation and the loss of biodiversity as results of excessive hunting and the damages we caused to the environment. Today, one of the prospects of space travel is the ability to travel to nearby planets in the future and harness its resources.
However, as mentioned by a classmate, although the damage we have done to the earth as shown in the video was an accurate depiction of our past, we are now working to reverse or at least limit such damage through sustainable technology. Examples mentioned in class was the farming of fish such that the transportation costs needed to catch the fish was minimised, and also practices such as trolling which have detrimental effects on the environment are not needed in the case of fish farming. An extension of the farming of animals would be animal husbandry whereby animals with desirable traits are breeded together, thus increasing the productivity of farming. The advancement of medical technology has allowed for desirable genes to be spliced into livestock or crops and allows for greater food production. Apart from these sustainable methods of food production, other resources have been harnessed in a more sustainable way such as selective logging ( at a rate at which the rate of removal is not greater than the rate of growth) and using of more sustainable forms of energy. So, despite the negative effects we have had on earth before, the greater knowledge we have about how things work has allowed us to better cater for our own wants and needs without such a great toll on the environment - a step in the right direction.
"It is not inconceivable that we may one day develop efficient home bioreactors for converting household biological wastes into energy for powering our household appliances."
The use of flash-pyrolysis to create energy from biomass is an example of the cyclical type of production that we need to adopt to attain sustainable production. This cyclical form of production was also emphasized in aishwarya's presentation on vermicompost (which uses earthworms to make biological and food waste suitable for use as fertilizers) and yiting's presentation on the production of artificial meat from sewage mud (unfortunately a hoax). It is through the use of cyclical methods of production that will allow us to continue our lifestyle while taking as little as possible from the environment.
There was discussion in class regarding the use of genetically modified foods and its suitability for consumption. The shift towards GMO foods is a controversial one due to lack of conclusive research regarding the safety of the foods, as well as lab experiments on other animals showing worrying results. The arguments for the need to label GMO foods (which usa opposes) include allowing the problematic GM food to be traced should its consumers experience health problems, as well as allowing consumers properly assess the risk of GMO foods themselves by the availability of labels instead of robbing them of the opportunity and in a way "force-feeding" the GMO foods to them. The main reasons for the removal of labelling is to get rid of the stigma associated with GMO foods (which is not unfounded fears) by simply not mentioning it. This is pretty irresponsible because of the health risks associated to it (albeit non-conclusive), similar to how NEWater is simply intergrated into our water supply despite studies showing that water obtained from reverse osmosis is detrimental to human health as it has been stripped of its minerals in the process of reverse osmosis.
Key takeaways from this lesson was the need for methods to solve inequality to be reviewed. Material aid cannot be simply given out because it can have detrimental long term effects on the economy of the country receiving the aid. Instead methods of production, knowledge, as well as teaching the people the importance of it, should be the steps more developed countries should take to alleviate poverty and inequality instead. Their mindset must be changed as providing mere material aid requires less effort. Problems of proper resource allocation also need to be addressed. As our technology improves, so has our methods of production which have become less environmentally taxing such as the use of cyclical methods of production. New technologies introduced into the market should also include indicators so as to respect the consumers right to make informed decisions as well as for possible damage controls.
Issues for further discussion would then be on how should new methods of production be transferred to the poor countries? Should technologies such as GMO be made available for these countries, knowing that with their lack of education or food resources they are unlikely to be concerned about possible future health and environmental implications of the technology they adopt?
Key takeaways from this lesson was the need for methods to solve inequality to be reviewed. Material aid cannot be simply given out because it can have detrimental long term effects on the economy of the country receiving the aid. Instead methods of production, knowledge, as well as teaching the people the importance of it, should be the steps more developed countries should take to alleviate poverty and inequality instead. Their mindset must be changed as providing mere material aid requires less effort. Problems of proper resource allocation also need to be addressed. As our technology improves, so has our methods of production which have become less environmentally taxing such as the use of cyclical methods of production. New technologies introduced into the market should also include indicators so as to respect the consumers right to make informed decisions as well as for possible damage controls.
Issues for further discussion would then be on how should new methods of production be transferred to the poor countries? Should technologies such as GMO be made available for these countries, knowing that with their lack of education or food resources they are unlikely to be concerned about possible future health and environmental implications of the technology they adopt?
Today's lesson covered some interesting topics and i would rate it 8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment