GMO's and Food

In an article by the Huffington post earlier this week they reported that multiple entities have passed bills limiting or banning GMO crops. Mexico has banned genetically engineered corn, Kauai has passed laws requiring that pesticides and GMO crops have to be disclosed to the public and they cannot be planted within 500 feet of schools, homes, and other buildings. Hawaii has passed a preliminary bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit biotech companies from operating on the Big Island. Washington state is also attempting to pass a bill that will require all GMOs and GMO products to be labelled. This bill, while not necessarily landmark, would open the door for other bills like it in other states.

This past week I attended the World Food Prize in Des Moines. The subject of this years prize was genetic modification and GMO crops. The panels that I attended focused mainly on how genetically modified crops could help us overcome some of the difficulties we face with climate volatility, pests and diseases, and increasing food security by increasing productivity. The three laureates were from Monsanto and Syngenta and they won for their pioneering work in genetic engineering in food crops. Now, while I understand why people dislike the idea of GMOs and the pesticide and herbicide use that come along with it, I think that they are a necessary evil in a world of exponential population growth and decreasing food productivity.

The first panel that we attended was a panel on how genetically modified crops can help keep food production increasing during global climate change. According to the IPCC report the world is already looking at a global temperature increase of 1-2ºC by 2050 and if we do not mitigate our carbon emissions we will have an increase of 5-6ºC by 2050. One of the panelists said that for every degree increase in temperature, we lose 10 percent off of global food production. A lot of what was said at the dialogue amounted to the fact that we need to explore all our options, and that genetic engineering is one of the most promising options at our disposal right now to fight climate volatility. Many plants can be bred to have high tolerances for drought or heat which will make them extremely important in combating the increasingly common extreme weather events that will occur with increased global climate change.

The next issue that was addressed by the panels was pest control and plant disease. Many GMO's are focused on giving resistance to certain herbicides or using bacterium that produces a protein called Bt toxin that is completely harmless to humans but destroys the stomachs of herbivorous insects. Herbivorous insects reduce production and decrease the quality of the crops that are produced. Sometimes insects can even decimate entire crops which leads to famines and food insecurity. These GMO's can be a viable solution to food security issues while decreasing external pesticide use. However, many trade constrictions, like the new ones listed above, mean that widespread use is not economically viable for food insecure nations because they cannot be sold to Europe or the U.S. While I don't think that GMO's are the best solution, we are past the point of using all the "great" solutions.

In addition the world population is expected to reach 9 billion by the end of this century. This increase in population means that we are going to have to increase food production by 50 percent to meet demand. Another facet of GMO technology is increased production through hybrids, selective breeding, and molecular modification. While I believe that as a species we need to recognize the limits of our habitat, I also realize that the urge to breed has been evolutionarily bred into every fiber of every living being in our entire ancestry. So, while I think that educated people should step up to the challenge and help make this problem more manageable, it is imperative that we still produce enough food so that all children that are born have an equal chance at life.

Genetically engineered crops can help feed the world as we keep increasing our population, using up the rest of the arable land, and destroying our existing breadbaskets with over-farming. This planet has a finite amount of land, a finite amount of water, a finite amount of phosphorous and other nutrients. What we have in excess is human ingenuity and we must use that to it's fullest extent in order to continue living on this planet.

GMO article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/huge-gmo-news_b_4129311.html

Marriage Equality

One of today's societies major flaws, in my opinion, is the massive effort to block marriage equality for the LGBTQ community, and the homophobia that has erupted as a response to this equality movement. It boggles my mind how so many people can ignore hard facts and persist in their unfounded hatred for human beings. There are so many things that are just logically wrong in opposing marriage equality like how homosexuality is a relatively common phenomenon is nature, or the fact that marriage wasn't originally a Christian institution, or the fact that, in the United States at least, there is a clause is the constitution that expressly prohibits legislation based on religion. These are just some of the various flaws and loopholes in opposing marriage equality.

Despite what some opponents of marriage equality believe, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and is actually pretty prevalent in animal species. In an entry posted in Nature Magazine called Bisexual Species, Emily Driscoll states that as many as 1,500 animal species have been observed exhibiting homosexual behavior both in the wild and in captivity. She goes on to say that homosexual behaviors are used to diffuse social tensions within living groups and that the trend seen in groups with homosexual behavior is that the more homosexuality that occurs the more peaceful the entire social group becomes. So, while homosexuality is used in the animal kingdom to promote peace and social harmony, in the human social structure we use it to sow hate and discontent.

The second argument that many opponents of marriage equality use is that "marriage is a holy institution of the christian church" and therefore should not be fouled by the "sinners" from the LGBTQ community. This is also an invalid statement. Originally marriage was an economic partnership to help bear the burden of raising kids and was only later adopted by the church as a religious institution. That is why you must get a marriage license from the government but you don't have to have a wedding in a church to be legally married. A sub-argument to this one says that in this day and age marriage is a christian institution and that the LGBTQ community can have a different type of civil union, but not marriage. The supreme court has already ruled that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. The supreme court is in place to uphold the constitution and protect the citizens of the United States from being taken advantage of by the law.

According to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The vast majority of those opposed to marriage equality do so for religious reasons, citing whichever religious text pertains to them. In this country, that is illegal. While you do have the right to voice your complaints, and the right to assemble to protest against what you view as wrong, you do not have the right to infringe on the rights of other American citizens by legally denying them access to public institutions because of your religious views. This country was built on people fleeing from the injustices of religious zealotry in England, why do we think it is justified to do the same to human beings a little less than 300 years later? The pilgrims believed so strongly in their religion that they were willing to cross an ocean, and settle a completely wild land instead of submitting to another religion. The founding fathers and other revolutionaries fought the strongest world power on the Earth at the time to ensure the freedoms in the constitution for "ourselves and our posterity". Why is it deemed acceptable today to persecute a completely peaceful group of people for loving someone different than the rest of the population? The answer is that it isn't acceptable. It is an injustice on the same level as segregation of blacks and whites.

Our country was built on the idea that everyone, no matter the color of your skin, your land of origin, the language you speak, or the religion you practice, everyone is given equal footing to achieve what they can through hard work and skill. Why are we discriminating now based on who people love? Of all the emotions to persecute, love should be the last on the list. We are all human beings, we should not judge each other with stereotypes or preconceived notions of what people "should be like". We should instead work together to build everyone up and continue to strive for equality for all.

The Government Shutdown

The United States government shutdown is probably one of the most inane, childish, immature, idiotic occurrences that has yet to beset this country. There are many ways to pin the blame in this situation and that in it of itself is an infuriating display of stupidity and nonsense, but it is not the point of this post. My real concern is the congressional deadlock and how it will effect the raising of the debt ceiling.

If this whole scrabble over healthcare in congress only affected the population of the United States, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sure, I have many personal opinions about who is responsible and that will come into play next time I vote. But that doesn't matter, no, what really scares me is the fact that congress is willing to play a game of economic chicken with the global economy. The United States is the spearhead of the global economy. What happens to us happens to the rest of the world. Remember when the housing bubble burst in the U.S. and sent the entire world spiraling into an economic downturn that we are just now barely struggling to escape from? I do. Now congress is using our outstanding debt as a political bargaining chip like this is some game. The global repercussions of the United States defaulting on it's loans would be catastrophic. 

The U.S. has occupied the central position in the global community since the end of the second world war and that has led us to hold a very powerful position, and with great power comes great responsibility. The United States is central economy holding the global community together, the fact that we have never defaulted on our debts makes us a safe investment and the powerhouse of our capitalist economy makes us an enticing place to invest indeed. This set of events means that if, for some reason, we default on our debts that confidence will be shaken, we will no longer be a safe investment, and with our already sputtering economy that is a death blow to our economy, and as has been shown in the 2008 recession when we fall, we take everyone with us.

If we default on our loans we and we alone will be responsible for the global economic downturn that is sure to follow. The worst part about all of this? The rest of the world has absolutely no control over a body of 435 men and women that have the power to throw us all into this economic abyss. The rest of the world didn't vote for them, they can't call them to ask them to see reason and compromise, the rest of the world can only sit idly by while we slowly drift off a cliff with a rope attached to their necks. That's what makes me angry. These poor souls had no control over the catastrophe that will envelope them if we default. 

All of this will happen because two political parties cannot agree over whether or not a law providing healthcare insurance to the poor citizens if this country should be funded now, or next year. Let that sink in, we are so wrapped up in our political squabbles that our congress is willing to hurt millions of lives so that the representatives can have party support in their next election primary.