I’ve been working on keeping most meat out of my diet for the past six months or so. I was a full time, fairly militant vegetarian in my early twenties but gave it up for good after college. I’ve been trying again for a couple of reasons: I want to eat a healthier diet, and I am concerned about the environmental impact and ethics of factory meat farming. I am not against meat eating, but I am against the conditions that pertain in most large-scale commercial meat farms, even when they are operated under lawful conditions. Last week, I read an article that makes a cogent, if heavy-handed, argument that if you are horrified by the death of Cecil the lion but you eat factory-farmed meat, then perhaps you should examine your position on meat eating. Even though I found the article to be written in a way that is likely to provoke a defensive reaction in a lot of meat eaters, it still reinforced my conviction to keep up with my mostly vegetarian diet. I’ve been doing pretty well but I’m going to get stricter with it – for myself, for the animals, and for the earth. Maybe this article will make you think about doing something similar – even if it’s just instituting a meatless Monday habit.
Tag: environment
-
Daily Reads: Almond Joy
California is experiencing a severe drought, so severe that Governor Jerry Brown recently mandated 25% cuts in water use for individuals and businesses throughout the state. Those cuts did not include agricultural users. Many people are upset that farmers are escaping the restrictions, and they have turned their ire on a specific crop: almonds. It turns out that almonds are a very thirsty crop, with a single nut requiring a gallon of water to produce.Mother Jonesled the charge against almonds in July 2014 when they published an article snarkily titled “Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters.” This article was my first introduction to the economics of almonds, and I immediately agreed that almonds are a wasteful crop to produce during times of such drastic drought – though I have to admit I didn’t stop eating them (I have never had almond milk and I’m not eager to try it regardless of the drought). Now, with the new water restrictions, almonds are the target of people who believe that a crop that uses up to 10% of California’s agricultural water should give way to more drought-tolerant, sustainable crops. Yet, it turns out that there is more nuance to the business of almonds than just their thirstiness and value to the state economy. Today’s two Daily Reads address both sides of the almond debate. One article, from CUESA (Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture), highlights the value of almonds and points out that they can be sustainably managed by small farmers. The second is an article from Mother Jones responding to several arguments that almonds really aren’t that bad. I invite you to read both, as well as the other articles I linked to, and draw your own conclusions; but as for me, I still think there are better ways to use our agricultural water than to grow a water-intensive crop that is mostly destined for overseas markets.
-
Daily Reads: Pest Control
Today’s article is a must read because it is reporting on an issue that has become divisive in the public eye. A new review of the research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, shows that it is probably a human carcinogen. As Dan Charles from NPR’s The Salt points out, while this news sounds bad, the truth is really much more nuanced. Yet, as expected, this news is already being trumpeted by those opposed to Monsanto, the company that manufactures Roundup. Monsanto also creates and sells seeds for the genetically modified (GMO) crops that are resistant to glyphosate. To those opposed to the use of GMOs, Monsanto is the devil. So now, there is a review that seems, on the surface, to prove that both glyphosate and by extension, GMOs, are unsafe for humans. Critically, this is not actually what the review concludes. This is a perfect example of how selective reporting on scientific research can confuse and mislead the public. This is incredibly important, because both sides of a debate can leverage these reports to bolster their side, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. I’ll leave it to you to read the article, but here are some of the most important takeaways:
“…the IARC is saying that glyphosate probably could cause cancer in humans, but not that it probably does.” “… society often chooses simply to accept certain hazards. Among the other things that the IARC says probably cause cancer are burning wood in home fireplaces, disruption of circadian rhythms by working overnight shifts and working as a hairdresser.” What this means is that the dose makes the poison: yes, glyphosate causes changes in cellular DNA that could lead to cancer, but the report does not say under what circumstances and at what dose. This is a very important area for more research, because there are countless substances in our daily environments that are technically carcinogens, but that you’d have to be exposed to in huge quantities to actually be put at risk.
“…studies of human health records did not turn up convincing evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. A long-running study of farm workers, for instance, did not show higher rates of cancer among those exposed to the chemical.” This conclusion from the report will definitely not be showing up in the responses from those organizations that are anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto.
“…Glyphosate residues on food, however, are not of great concern. The chemical is used in the early stages of growing crops like soybeans, corn, and canola. Those crops, if they even reach human consumers at all, are heavily processed first, destroying any glyphosate residues.” Again, this fact is not likely to be highlighted by those who are motivated to cherry-pick only those parts of the report that fit their beliefs.
All this said, I also want to point out that I am disappointed (although far from surprised) in Monsanto’s response that the report is biased and constitutes “junk science.” The research cited in the report does show a probable carcinogenic effect that needs more study, and it’s disingenuous for Monsanto to dismiss it simply as bad science. Monsanto has an agenda too, so they are just as likely to cherry-pick as the anti-GMO crowd. True skepticism and critical thinking means taking account of all the data; but I realize that’s a lot to ask when it comes to these controversial issues. If you are anti-GMO or if this report scares you, please read the article and realize that this is not the final word, and that frightening buzzwords like “carcinogen” and “cancer” should not derail your responsibility to think critically.
-
Daily Reads: K-Cups
Do you use one of those Keurig coffee machines that use the little pre-filled pods called K-Cups? Have you ever thought about whether you can recycle those pods or how many you end up sending to the landfill? When I first saw a Keurig machine I was, frankly, dismissive; it seemed like a machine that was trying to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. But really, isn’t that what product marketing and advertising is all about – manipulating consumers into wanting and buying things they don’t need? I was immediately turned off by the wastefulness of K-Cups but apparently I’m in the minority, because Keurig machines are now widely used. It turns out that the creator of the Keurig is in that minority, too. In this article from Brian Bennet of C|Net, Keurig inventor John Sylvan admits that his machines and their pods are overpriced and environmentally damaging. Too little too late, since they are now so popular, but some people are starting to figure it out. This article by Maria Godoy from the NPR blog The Salt discusses a parody video that highlights the environmental disaster of the K-Cup. It’s funny, but it’s also informative. And if you really want to drill down into the Keurig problem, this article from The Atlantic by James Hamblin will fill you in. If you are a Keurig user, maybe reading these articles will cause you to reconsider.
Keurig’s own inventor not a fan of K-Cups
Coffee Horror: Parody Pokes At Environmental Absurdity Of K-Cups
-
Adaptation to Extinction
I am at a climate change adaptation conference in Denver for three days, and I fully expected to come away from the experience thoroughly demoralized and depressed. At the end of day two, I find that I have both reason for hope and reason for concern. As a person who is well-versed in the scientific method, I have approached the climate change issue as a skeptic should: with a critical eye, and with a desire to hear multiple sides and multiple interpretations. It did not take much research of my own, though, for me to be convinced that climate change is occurring, and that it is extremely likely that it is being made much, much worse by human activity. Ultimately, this may well be what causes the extinction of the human species.
Scientists have determined that 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. That’s a huge number, but you have to consider that extinction is defined more broadly than the sudden disappearance of a species. Some extinctions occur through speciation; that is, an organism or group of organisms undergoes adaptation and evolution, and over time, changes enough that it is no longer the same species. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans, which lived about 5-7 million years ago, does not exist now; but (some) of its descendants do, in the form of Homo sapiens (humans); Pan paniscus (chimpanzees), and Pan troglodytes (bonobos). Other members of those two genera have also existed and subsequently gone extinct (e.g. H. erectus). So, extinction is not always the end of the line for an organism or group of organisms. Even the dinosaurs, many of which went extinct in the commonly perceived way (that is, they were wiped out entirely in a fairly short period of time, geologically speaking) have living descendants. We call them birds.
If things continue the way they have been, I’m not sure humans are going to have any descendants. And I also think that humans will be the first species in history who have caused their own extinction. Most species go extinct in one of two ways I described above: through adaptation and speciation; or through an inability to adapt to new or changed environmental circumstances. The dinosaurs, and many other organisms who lived 65 million years ago, were unable to adapt quickly enough to the changed environment following a catastrophic asteroid impact, and so they died. The asteroid impact was a random event over which the organisms had no control. Humans, on the other hand, are paradoxically bringing themselves (and not incidentally, many other organisms) to the brink of extinction because they are so good at adapting to their environment. This is a case of too much of a good thing, and when it happens, what used to become adaptive becomes maladaptive and starts to negatively affect the species.
How is the human ability to adapt to the environment bringing about our own potential demise? Humans are supremely skilled at technological innovation. What started with stone tools has evolved to microprocessors, digital technology, nanotechnology, genetic modification, and so on. These things are built on a basis of energy and raw materials extraction. Our technological abilities led to the ability to grow more food, have more children, live longer, and make more and more things. In biological and evolutionary terms, an organism’s ability to reproduce is measured as a level of fitness; and the more offspring you produce, the more fit you are. For many organisms, and for animals in particular, mate selection depends on fitness characteristics – males battle each other for the right to females; females select mates based on displays of desirable traits. For humans, one of the most salient traits is status. The higher an individual’s status, the more likely that individual is to mate and produce offspring – that is, the higher his or her fitness. Status is also linked to the ability to raise offspring to maturity. In humans, status is often linked to power, power is linked to wealth, and wealth is indicated by material possessions (among other things). So, the more stuff you have, the more status you have, and the more power you have, the more people – including potential mates – you control. I don’t want to be too broadly sociobiological about this, but for all intents and purposes, our incredible ability to innovate and adapt through making tools is a direct result of the biological imperative to mate and maximize our evolutionary fitness.
So, what does our drive for evolutionary fitness have to do with climate change? It’s simple, really; making tools is what we do. Gathering material things to show our status is what we do. Using yet more tools to make having more material things easier is what we do. Desiring material things to show our status is what we do. Innovating, adapting, making the path of least resistance easier and easier and easier is what we do. Competing for resources is what we do. Dividing ourselves into status hierarchies is what we do. Trying to climb higher and higher up the status pyramid is what we do. And to do these things, we have created more and more tools and technologies that are requiring more and more energy and more and more raw materials, and the technologies we use are having a hugely disproportionate impact on the global environment. Put every one of the over 7 billion people on the planet together in one place, and they don’t take up much space, in terms of square mileage; we can all fit pretty neatly standing side by side in an area about the size of Los Angeles County. But our impact – the impact of our technologies, of everything we harvest and cut and mine and burn and use – is global in scale. We have pushed the bar so high that going back seems impossible.
I know there is much, much more to it than what I have written here, but I really, truly believe that at its very core, it is the biological imperative gone to extremes that has led to the unintended consequences of humans adapting themselves into maladaptiveness. I can also have hope that our innovative, tool-making genius may save us yet. This is not the last I will have to say on this subject, but you have to start with first principles, and I believe our evolutionary history holds that position.