Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There are of course clever folk trying to make power via nuclear fusion in the UK at the JET facility. If they should succeed, it would provide a much safer method of power generation, where the waste is no more radioactive than the ore.
[they also get points for the Star Wars lego on the homepage :-)]
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
Nuclear power plants for instance may not break very often, but when they do…
Did I read somewhere that the damaged reactor in Chernobyl will have to be maintained for 4,000 years before it no longer presents a hazard? Sure adds to the cost of nuclear power.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Yamis,
Plenty of hugely damaging work done on the environment BEFORE globalisation Lilith. Maori and NZ’s forests being an example.
I’d also argue that those places most ‘hungry’ in the world have the least involvement in the process of ‘globalisation’.
Only a very silly person would claim Globalisation as the root of all evil. :-)
However it's a system which requires almost everything to be transported long-distance, which is polluting and which becomes prohibitively expensive in the long run unless someone finds a cheap substitute for fossil fuels. And then if we should have to be largely self-sufficient, even on a national basis, we would struggle.
It also puts the food supply under the control of large multinational corporations, which IMHO is a dumb idea.
We have the sort of situation where the Amazon is being cut down to produce beef for American hamburgers...it's not like America can't keep its own cattle, but it's cheaper to do it in the Amazon.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Carol Stewart,
I think that on the whole, trade has been a civilising influence on the world.
What do you mean by civilising? Globalisation hasn’t alleviated hunger, and it’s been hugely damaging to the environment.
ETA: I’m happy to absorb anyone’s surplus of cape gooseberries! Yum! :-)
-
And BTW, as someone who used to transport her groceries via bus in a tramping pack, I understand how easy it is to buy more than you can actually physically carry!
-
Since it’s Friday: for anyone who hasn’t seen this wee charmer:
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
the GM crops we have now require large-scale use of oil-derived fertilizers and pesticides and also long-distance transport to market, all of which is completely unsustainable in a post-peak-oil world.
None of those problems have anything to do with GM.
Perhaps not to do with GM in itself, but the GM varieties we currently have require loads of fertilizer and pesticides that we only have for a limited time. They contribute to a paradigm which will be useless in the longer term, and which is already useless in much of the third world because of the cost.
I can understand why some farmers are keen to preserve the hardy heirloom varieties: we may need them.
The Green Revolution's great innovation was high-yielding dwarf varieties of some cereals, but (as an ignorant layperson) I can't see what other directions there are to go in with GM, if we can't use synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.
I think the way of the future will be in everybody growing their own where possible; urban and rooftop gardens that use every bit of space available; local growers supplying their community, minimising fuel use; and a more vegetable-based diet: we've known for a long time that keeping animals is an inefficient use of space compared to the growing of crops.
I don't think GM will feed the world; I don't think preventing starvation and supporting a growing population is primarily a scientific problem to be solved: it's an economic and political one. And the more we expect GM to magically give us food security, the less we are prepared for a self-reliant future.
/rant.
-
Oh Russell, I hope your back's better soon! The dangers of being a gourmand!!
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Islander,
Ooo, library angels are the greatest! I sometimes wonder if some supernatural being has put particular books in my path in the library! But I tend to get overexcited among large gatherings of books so it could just be that. :-)
Wait - isn't Kilgore Trout a fictional author??
ETA: wow, it's complicated!
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You know that those problems are exactly what we are trying to solve using GM. All those problems come from existing culture methods. GM, particularly of minor crops allows them to produce at levels that make them viable, they also allow less pesticide use we are talking huge differences in pesticide use. Add that to no-till agriculture as a result of GM and it’s hard to argue GM has made those problems worse.
Maybe you’re trying to solve them, but I don’t believe that large agribusiness is. It’s not the technology that’s at fault, but how it’s applied. As I understand it, the GM crops we have now require large-scale use of oil-derived fertilizers and pesticides and also long-distance transport to market, all of which is completely unsustainable in a post-peak-oil world.
And there are organic proponents of no-dig agriculture who grow food plants that are well-matched to soil and climate. GM is not the only way.
I think the industrial-scale-agribusiness solution is not the only workable model for providing food security. With the collapse of the USSR and with the USA’s trade blockade, Cuba had to adapt to growing their own organic food locally, or starve. Result – 85% locally-grown organic produce, and a well-nourished population. They struggled initially, but they made it work. Yes, it’s more labour-intensive, but it’s sustainable and it doesn’t depend on oil or oil-derived products.