I (Wayne Dawson) wrote:
<< I think in the case of the genetically modified (GM) corn, it might
have been insect resistant corn and the monarch butterfly was an
inadvertant victim. However, even the mindset that we need *more*
toxins in plants because insects are becoming resistant to the current
arsenal of insecticides seems to me the wrong way of solving the
problem.
>>
James Taggart commented:
Given that the insect resistant corn injured the Monarch
butterfly habitat, people are forgetting that the alternative
to this scenario is NOT corn that is not insect resistant.
Before there was insect resistant corn, the problem was
addressed by spraying insecticide from airplanes on to the
corn, thereby affecting not just Monarch butterflies
feeding nearby (a problem that could be addressed by
planting the no-resistant kind in a border around the
field, so the pollen from the poisonous kind was less
likely to invade monarch habitat), but any birds that
happened to be flying by, cars passing near the field,
children and dogs playing in yards, etc.
>>
I commend you for showing a little broader thinking than
they are "our tomatos" and "our corn", and not the
blessings that God has provided in abundance. Moreover,
I commend you for considering that offering a "tithe" to
the biodiversity on this planet might be a way of "casting
our bread on the waters". After all, for all that God has
given us, what is a measly "tithe" to show our gratitude?
Indeed, one of the reasons we have the problems we have with
pesticide resistant insects is because we suffer from a remnate
19th century way of thinking: "the only good bug is a dead one".
If you start on a policy of "extermination", you are bound to
lose and we are seeing the rewards of this mentality only after
a few generations.
<<
So you get your choice, corn that looks out for itself
locally, or gets bombed from the air. Those are the
real alternatives.
>>
I think there are alternatives. However, as a population,
we need to ween ourselves of a fear of "bugs". If you look
at still life paintings from the 16th century you will see
some paintings with "bugs" crawling around in on the fruit.
Oh horrors! There was a time when we lived without pesticides,
just like there was a time when Italian food did not consist
of tomatos or pasta. What did Italians eat before the 14th
century????? (Pasta is from China, and tomatos are from
the Americas.)
My grandfather was a professor in a university during the
depression and he didn't have an excess income with five kids
to support. To save some money, he would buy bussels of
peaches, tomatoes etc. which had "spots" on them. Oh my!
Then the family would spend several days afterward canning
them. It's actually a blessing to have parents who can teach
you how to survive with little in a day when we have much.
If you cut the spot off of a peach, it's still a peach isn't
it? It's that "cosmetic appearance" mentality that has
warped our thinking in our industrial society.
There are additional ways.... Has anyone ever heard of
"natural preditors"? What a novel idea! Before the
pesticide, there were certain animals who made
their living eating these bugs. What happened to them?
Also, as James pointed out, dividing a crop into a
part which is "consumed", and a part which we consume,
represents a form of "crop management". Better crop
management is certainly a move in the right direction.
This could even be done with conventional insecticides
and would be one way to help gradually rectify the
current chaos we have already created. Indeed, it may
be the safest way out of this mess.
What seems to be problematical to me is that in order to
have an "agribusiness" and sustain low prices for food,
you must have "products" that have a manufactured look.
Small farms where this kind of industry is possible are
basically gone because they are uneconomical to operate.
One thing I had not considered in this regard
is that the survival of a small farm might
still be viable in this "organic" market.
What Kamilla was pointing out in regards to this
"organic market" is basically a small farm cooperative. I
think most old time farmers (typically *very* conservative
Christians) would have some strong emotional difficulties
joining such cooperatives, but it does represent a way
for the "farm" to survive in an highly industrial society.
The down side is that it is only capable of sustaining
a local market, so you won't see strawberries from Mexico
and apples from New Zealand in these kind of operations.
The other problem is of course, that we have produced farms
and farmers who are addicted to the pesticide. Moreover,
we have pesticide resistant insects, so we need more insecticide
to sustain the current production. For small farmers still
struggling to survive in a highly competitive market, production
is life or death. So if the bugs are more resistant to the
pesticide, just use more, and more, and more, and more.....
Likewise, manufactures of pesticides have built up a stake
in this market, and fundamentally, it is difficult to get out
of it. They've invested a lot in this, and like anyone, be
they an individual or a cooperation, it's fair enough to
realize such is problematical.
So again, it seems
by Grace alone can we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 02:08:55 EDT