Blog # 3

READING SUMMARIES AND CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?– Lester Brown  

In this selection, written in 2009, Lester Brown begins by warning that despite the public tendency to pretend that food shortages couldn’t possibly become an issue world wide, the threat of this occurring is real. He goes on to say that one of the biggest global threats to political stability worldwide (linked to local food shortages) is the phenomenon of “failing states” which are nations that become unable to provide basic services such as safety (of both person and food supply), education, and healthcare to their people. As a result, chaos, disorder, and power struggles emerge amongst terrorists and drug and weapons dealers in the failed states, which in turn cause international threats to global stabilization.

Brown then goes on to describe the high grain prices of 2007 – 2008 as disturbing due to their likelihood to remain high, due to their linkage to trends (which vary to some degree between countries, but on the whole are fairly global) including increased population growth, and increased consumption patterns. Brown states that these trends have substantial opportunity to increase/ worsen their demand on grain as they continue, and also cites the diversion of significant amounts of U.S. grain towards producing ethanol fuel as another trend which is driving up the demand, and therefore, price of grain. He warns that the food and energy economies have begun to merge in a worrisome way as the U.S. has begun to transfer to using more of this local energy source in order to curb dependence on foreign oil, despite the fact that even if the entire U.S. grain harvest were devoted to fuel production, it would only satisfy 18% of the U.S.’s total automotive energy needs. Brown then outlines 3 major environmental trends as limiting the ability of our planet to expand grain supply, namely being a shortage of freshwater, the loss of topsoil, and rising temperatures/ other effects of climate change. The impacts of water shortages on grain production are described as the most pressing environmental factor, and the likely effects of this phenomenon are focused on in the world’s 3 largest grain-producing countries: the U.S., China, and India. Brown discusses the fact that many of these countries largest aquifers are un-replenishable by nature, and that the water tables in all three countries are dropping. He forewarns against China potentially needing to import massive quantities of grain to feed their huge population once their ground water runs out, and that approximately 175 million Indians are at risk of losing their grain supply in the near future, when their ground water runs out as well. In discussing soil erosion, Brown describes the massive amount of time needed to develop soil for agriculture, and how extensive agricultural practices are using it up much faster than it can be replaced. Brown then describes increasing surface temperature due to climate change as perhaps the most “pervasive” environmental factor, having the ability to affect crop yields on a global scale, simultaneously.

Brown then launches into a discussion of the political implications of such trends, including self-serving measures put in place by particular nations in the hope to preserve their own country’s food supply which, in reality, only harm the global market for food in the long run, as well as the break down of social order on the local scale, in certain areas where the global shortage of food is already being felt.

As a potential solution to all the global-scale issues Brown describes, “Plan B” is introduced. Plan B is described as a 4 part plan including the reduction of Carbon emissions by 80% from 2006 to 2020 through the investment into alternative energy and through the use of measures such as a carbon tax; the eradication of poverty and the stabilizing of the Earth’s population (described as two components that work together); and lastly, a global restoration of the Earth’s natural resources and resource-producing systems through world-wide initiatives such as increased water efficiency and soil conservation through alternative agriculture methods. Brown deems Plan B as potentially vital to saving human civilization as we know it, and urges for it’s implementation to occur quickly.

Critical Thinking Question 1: According to Lester Brown, what is the greatest threat to global political stability?

Lester Brown cites today’s greatest threat to global political stability as failing states. He says that, “In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk.” However, Brown outlines one of the main causes of failed states to be the collapse of governments due to their inability to provide basic services for their people, one of these main services being the supply of food. Therefore, despite the fact that Brown never explicitly says that a global food shortage is the greatest threat to global political stability, the above article suggests that he certainly believes that it could be vital in bringing about an increase in the number of failed states that occur globally. Thus, I would argue that while failed states are, in Brown’s mind, the greatest threat to global political stability, he is particularly concerned with global food shortages bringing them about if global environmental stresses are not reduced, and so food shortages are also a major threat to global political stability, in Brown’s mind.  

Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation -  Vandana Shiva

In this selection, Vandana Shiva argues that the “marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand”, citing an inherent of fear of diversity which dominates patriarchal world views in seeing women as different or inferior, as equivalent to the same maltreatment of biodiversity that “capitalist patriarchy” has executed in its traditional treatment/ valuation of the environmental diversity and self-sufficiency of our Earth. Shiva likens diversity to womanhood, and suggests that women’s knowledge of diversity could be vital in remodelling traditional production and technology practices world wide in order for ecologic diversity to be truly conserved, with economic prosperity still achieved. Common characteristics of modern production such as homogeneity and monocultures (especially in agriculture) are outlined as major inhibitors in the conservation of biodiversity, and Shiva argues that their supposed benefits in producing higher yields than diversity-based practices are one-dimensional and biased in that they evaluate the production outcomes of only a few crops of commercial interest, rather than productivity/wealth in a broader sense. This broader sense of prosperity includes the well being of people in third world countries and around the world who cultivate resources and benefit from the increased labour demand of diversity-based practices, which create job opportunities and protect against poverty and dispossession.

Shiva then launches into the discussion of the important role women play in production – particularly food production – as well as the difficulty in defining this large contribution of work through statistical or economic terms. This is largely due to the fact that many women are involved in the many different aspects of work it takes to produce goods, but much of this work, as well as the knowledge and  skill it requires,  is often not directly attached to/ measured by a wage, or recognized by formal institutions of knowledge as men's work contributions more commonly are. Therefore, plenty of women’s contributions/roles related to the preservation and use of indigenous knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation is lost when viewed through the economic lens of analyzing distinct “sectors”, and their importance is especially dwarfed in the analysis of third world or developing nations, such as India, in which women’s practices in conserving biodiversity provide the backbone for productivity in such resource-limited conditions. Shiva maintains that the biodiversity conservation strived for through women’s indigenous knowledge is different (and superior to) that strived for through the western-science based, “dominant patriarchal notion of biodiversity conservation” in many ways, the most prominent most likely being the value placed on the life of a seed. Shiva outlines the issues concerning seed patents, which effectively allow a certain type of seed to be used only once (this is an aspect of western monocultural farming practices) and transform farmers into consumers, contrasting this attitude with the reuse of seed in developing nations, whose farmers are more like custodians of seed. Issues with other “dominant patriarchal” practices are also discussed, including genetic engineering and the potential adverse health risks they pose.

Critical Thinking Question 1: What is an “ecofeminist”?

An ecofeminist is an individual who views the exploitation of women and anti-feminist views as linked to the domination of nature, both caused by some extent to the patriarchal social and political frameworks which are prevalent in many of today’s societies. Ecofeminists such as Vandana Shiva may see an intrinsic/ naturally superior link between women and nature (or specifically, between women and understanding the importance of conserving biodiversity), while other ecofeminists merely feel that the experiences that men and women have in male dominated societies differ, and thus the two genders’ understanding of and way of thinking about ecological issues and phenomenon are different. Ecofeminists challenge the norms and inherent ways of thinking involved in both dominant/traditional views about the status of women and the status of the natural world simultaneously, drawing parallels between the two.

Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems – Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo

This selection, published in 1997, contains an overview of how humans have affected the Earth’s ecosystems, focusing on the human population’s effects on land transformation, oceans, alterations of biogeochemical cycles, and biotic changes. A conclusion which provides recommendations is also included. For simplicity’s sake, each section will be summarized individually.

In discussing the changes that the human population has caused to the face of the earth, or, in other words, land transformations, it is outlined that the most change due to humans has been caused by the alteration of land to produce (both goods and services). The selection states that 10-15% of the Earth’s land is currently being used for row-crop agriculture and another 6-8 % is used as pasture land. Since agriculture is an entirely human practice, this implies that 16- 23 % of the world’s land has been transformed by humans for this industry alone. It is outlined that it is difficult to measure human effects on land at the global level due to the variations which occur from site to site, as well as that it is certain that human use of land effects ecosystem structure and function, biogeochemical cycles, and other long-range processes everywhere. It also is stated that the amount of land affected/ changed by the practices of humans is difficult to put a number to, but all information points to the fraction being large, and that land transformation is the primary cause of loss of biodiversity worldwide, impacting climate change, air pollution, as well as severe weather trends.

The human impacts on the world’s oceans are defined to be even more difficult to quantify than that of human- caused land transformations. A specific negative human impact outlined included the exploitation of marine life caused by commercial fishing, which has lead to a depletion of fish populations in many areas as well as a depletion of other marine life due to the high death rates of non-target animals, and damage to important marine habitat caused by fishing practices. Another example of a negative human impact on oceans given by the selection was the drastic increase in the frequency of algal blooms world wide, which are thought to be largely due to pollution caused by humans (both through nutrient run-off as well as temperature changes driven by human-caused climate change) and which kill marine life through the large-scale excretion of toxins.

In the section of the selection that dealt with human- caused alterations to biogeochemical cycles, carbon, water, nitrogen, ­­­and organic synthetic chemicals were discussed separately. The general trend found for carbon is that humans are causing an increased concentration of it in our atmosphere, through both the increased combustion of fossil fuels as a result of the industrial era, as well as through practices such as deforestation and other land changes which inhibit the ability of the earth to sequester CO₂ emissions. It is projected that the changes to the concentration of the atmospheric carbon caused by humans will cause drastic climactic changes over the next century, as well as other drastic changes in the species composition and other dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems which are difficult to predict, due to the different ways that atmospheric carbon effects different life-forms, and the extent of this effect varying with location. The general trend found for water is that the increased demand for fresh water by humans on the world’s limited supply has lead to alterations to freshwater ecosystems even more prominent than terrestrial ecosystem alterations caused by land transformations. Only 2% of the U.S.’s rivers remain unimpeded/transformed by man. These changes to fresh water systems are generally made so that more water can be available for consumption, irrigation, and use for hydro-electricity--  humanity now uses more than half of the runoff fresh water that is reasonably accessible on Earth, with about 70% of this going to agriculture. These man-made alterations to the water cycle also effect regional climate trends, as irrigation often causes an increase in atmosphere humidity in semiarid climates. The nitrogen cycle was also found to be drastically altered by humans, mainly via an increase in the amount of nitrogen fixation occurring on the global scale. Humans industrially fixate nitrogen for use in agriculture, as well as inadvertently fixate nitrogen during fossil fuel combustion and the mass production of naturally nitrogen-fixing legume crops. Consequences of this human alteration to the nitrogen cycle may include a global increase in the green house gas nitrous oxide, substantial flux increases of reactive nitrogen-containing gases, substantial contributions to acid rain and photochemical smog creation, a loss of biodiversity due to "N saturation" in ecosystems, and increased eutrophication and toxic algae growth in marine ecosystems. It is also discussed that in addition to these three biogeochemical cycles, humans effect other cycles which significantly impact climate, air quality, and biogeochemistry around the world. The human production of organic synthetic chemicals is also cause for concern, as these chemicals are often toxic to biota and persist in environments/ecosystems, and can also cause alterations to atmospheric composition.

Biotic changes caused by man-made alterations to the earth's biological resources and systems are also noted to be drastic. Widespread mass extinction, much higher than background rates of extinction without the impacts of humans, is one such change, largely caused by land transformations. Another change is the arrangement of the Earth's biotic systems via the widespread introduction of invasive, non-indigenous species, which is causing a general trend of global loss of genetic variability and homogenization of the Earth's biota.

The selection concludes with a message that global changes caused by human activity are something that should be dealt with sooner rather than later, as our understanding of the consequences of these changes lags behind the change that we cause. The authors warn that the earth is largely in our hands, and advises that we reduce the rate of change that we cause, increase efforts to understand the Earth's ecosystems and our effects on them, and accept responsibility for managing the planet and, by extension, the effects of the human impact on it.

Critical Thinking Question 1: Almost 50% of the land surface has been transformed by human endeavours and more than half of all available fresh water is presently being used by humans. We thus have a long way to go before we run out of land or water. What is wrong with that statement?

What is wrong with that statement is that it fails to recognize a lot of conditions and factors which make the second part of it untrue: we do not have a very long way to go before we run out of land or water. This large fraction of land and fresh water that is currently being used by humans was largely acquired since the industrial revolution - approximately within the last 100 years. It accompanied soaring population rates and consumption patterns that continue to grow at ever-increasing rates. Therefore, since the Earth's human population and consumption patterns continue to increase, the remaining fraction of the Earth's land and fresh water that is not currently transformed/used by humans will not take long to run out, and before long human demand will exceed that which the Earth has available for us.

ACTIVITY:  New York- Before the City Ted Talk

In this Ted Talk, Eric Sanderson  discusses the development of a  project he's been working on called the Mannahatta Project, in which he and a few colleagues have tried to recreate/figure out what New York looked like before the arrival of Europeans and its development into a mega city. Sanderson discusses how, as a landscape ecologist, he tries to understand how landscapes create habitat and ecosystems for animals, and became interested in doing this same thing for New York. He shows pictures that he discovered during investigations into the history of the landscape of New York City, which display New York as appearing significantly more natural.

Sanderson then discusses how he discovered a map (which he shows) from the American Revolution that shows New York as it was at the time, with its many marshes, hills, and streams in place of modern-day structures, the "Collect Pond" which served as the main water source for the first 200 years of New York's existence, as well as how this map combined with other geologic and historical information led to the creation of a model of New York as Henry Hudson would have found in 1609. Sanderson says that Manhattan had 55 different ecosystem types, which is a large number, and that it was an extraordinary landscape which supported extraordinary biodiversity.

Sanderson then explains the studies that were performed concerning the animals that were present on Manhattan, and how he and his colleagues created a network of habitat relationships for species they knew to be present which helped them learn more specifics about the landscape of New York at the time of Henry Hudson's discovery. He also shows the "Muir Webs" that he and his colleagues created, and how these webs allowed for the creation of specific, detailed visuals displaying the ecosystems in the different parts of present-day New York City.

Sanderson then urges for his audience to visualize New York 400 years into the future, and to imagine it with all the same diversity and abundance of present Manhattan, but with aspects of sustainability drawn from the Manhattan of the past with its diversity and abundance in ecology and in nature.

My impressions of the video are that it was very eye-opening to see New York as it was naturally and to be able to contrast this with all the man-made changes of its present day appearance. The images presented allowed for a true appreciation to be fostered for the type of biodiversity and abundance of life that was present before its industrialization into a mega-city. I find it very interesting that even before the huge human population of present New York, New York was still a busy place, booming with life. I also found the obvious differences between the types of life that were present in 1609 versus today very  striking. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the video and I think that this project by Sanderson and his colleagues, as well as other projects like it, could be a vital tools in promoting a public appreciation and respect for the Earth's nature.

IN-CLASS BLOG QUESTIONS:

1. Consider your food system:

·        What do you like about it?

·        What do you dislike about it?

·        Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity and environmental issues

Things that I like about my food system include the fact that since places such as grocery stores carry such a range of products, food is easily accessible for my family. I also like the fact that in Winnipeg, there seems to be a trend toward restaurants using local food and/or free-range food products, providing more vegetarian/ vegan options on menus, and overall seem to be more conscious about promoting ethical food sourcing practices. I also like that, on a global scale, while groceries/ food don't always seem to be a fair price for a consumer, the fact is that in other places around the world food is much more expensive/less accessible, so I'm thankful that my experience with food and my food system is not lacking in accessibility for me, personally. I also like that, in general, the food I consume is of good taste and of seemingly good quality. 

Things that I don't like about my food system are firstly, the amount of waste that occurs within it. In class we discussed the large amount of food that gets harvested that doesn't make it to the shelves for people to buy, and I really dislike the notion of so much energy going into the production of food for no reason. I also don't like the amount of environmental pollution and degradation that goes along with most modern agricultural practices,  including the destruction of natural ecosystems for farmland and monoculture crop practices, especially in light of the fact that so much of the damage that occurs doesn't even result in food making to the tables of families due to all the waste that occurs during transportation and in grocery stores. I work in the Produce department at Sobeys, so every week I see first hand the sheer amount of produce thrown out at just this step in the food system, and it troubles me to think about the amount that must go to waste in other steps of the food system. I also dislike the fact that in our present food system at big-box grocery stores there aren't many options for buying locally or buying free-range products. Although these food options are available in Winnipeg, they often require going to specialty food stores rather than grocery stores that are close to home, and in this sense I think that my food system could be improved upon by making local, organic, free-range products more easily accessible than they currently are.

2. What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation/education?

I think that zoos can, and should play a role in conservation/education, although I think this role should be fairly significantly different from their current role. I think that zoos conserving and breeding species at risk in captivity for the purpose of keeping some species to educate the public about the challenges that the species face, while at the same time fostering ways to release some of these captivity-bred species to the wild in the hopes of helping to repopulate the species, is a good and helpful purpose for zoos. However, after our discussions in class, I think that the level of education and success of breeding species at risk in captivity for releasing into the wild could definitely be improved upon, and should be, in order for zoos to play a helpful role in conservation/education. I think that human entertainment in viewing the animals should be secondary to public education and animal conservation, which right now, I'm not convinced that it is.

3. Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?

I think that it could be ethical to keep animals in zoos, depending on the types of enclosures that animals are kept in and the reasons behind certain animals being present in zoos in the first place. If animals are kept in zoos in conditions that satisfy their needs in order to educate the public and to conserve the species from extinction, then yes, I do think keeping animals in zoos is an ethical practice. However, achieving zoo conditions that stimulate animals and really do meet their needs is a very difficult goal to achieve, and I'd argue that not many zoos worldwide are achieving that goal at present. I think the happiness and healthiness of animals should be the most important goal of zoos, however a lack of funds/ means to achieve these goals often gets in the way of their achieving these goals within zoo walls. Therefore, if I'm perfectly honest, I find this question difficult to answer and I'm not sure that there is a good way to answer it. Perhaps the minimum number of animals should be kept in zoos solely in order to educate and conserve species, and all the rest should be kept in the wild whenever possible. I think that every wild animal that I can think of would most likely be happier in the wild than in a zoo, so I am tempted to say its not an ethical practice, but I also believe that education about and conservation of animal species is important, so I am unable to give a straight answer.

4. Do you enjoy visiting zoos?

When I was younger, I loved visiting zoos. I've always loved animals and cared for their well-being. As I've gotten older, however, my attitude towards zoos has changed to producing mixed feelings. On the one hand, when I see beautiful, interesting exotic animals up-close and personal a feeling of awe is inspired which is hard not to appreciate. But on the other hand, it is sometimes disturbingly obvious that the animals I'm observing are kept in small spaces, and that what I'm seeing them do in their tiny enclosure (which most of the time, they look bored doing) is what their entire life will consist of . It's a depressing thought. It makes me feel bad for the animals, because I know if someone forced me to stay in a small area for the rest of my life, I'd be bored to tears and depressed. It makes me wonder if animals kept in zoos are happy, which I know is an impossible question to answer. So, while yes, I can still enjoy visiting zoos despite having thought about this, that enjoyment feels a bit wrong, and, in general, the last few times I've gone to the zoo, I left feeling a bit troubled by it. Therefore, once again, I'm not entirely sure I can give a yes or no answer to the question.

5. What am I doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life? What would I like to do? I pledge to ______.

Currently, in my life, things I do to promote sustainability and happiness include:

• Taking the bus to school everyday and taking that time to myself to listen to music or read recreationally (which I thoroughly enjoy)
• Taking my dog for regular walks around the neighbourhood (rather than driving us to the nearest dog park)
• Walking to my friends' houses in summer/ going for walks with friends
• Regularly having potlucks with friends at someone's house where we all make our own food together
• Working out at home rather than driving to the gym as I used to
• Buying good quality local/organic/free-range food whenever possible / supporting those causes whenever possible

I would like to....

• Get in the habit of buying more local/organic/free-range food on a regular basis
• Eat at less fast-food restaurants
• Enhance my cooking abilities so I can make delicious food at home where  I know where all the ingredients come from (rather than at a restaurant)
• (Eventually) buy a more eco-friendly vehicle
• Start composting
• Grow some of my own produce in my backyard in summer

I pledge to grow some of my own produce in my backyard this summer so that I can decrease the amount of my money going into supporting unsustainable food systems and because it's a hobby I've always been interested in picking up since I enjoy being outside.