Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough and Richard Leaky walk into a bar...

Well, not really. But in this video, they discuss the future of our world, and it is naturally fascinating. None of them rely on the superficial slogans of most activists or have a simple solution to complex problems. (That being said, I agree with Attenborough... fewer people would be a great start).

I think my favorite comment was that if the entire population of earth had their standard of living raised to the level of an average (not elite or wealthy but average) American, we would need 4 planets worth of resources to sustain that level for everyone.

-M

From an outsider's POV I see this as the great failure of economics as a science - or rather its failure to become a real science: the failure to really take into account all the consequences of economic activity. As far as I know, mainstream economics still doesn't even take into account all the real "costs" of production - the costs to the environment, the costs to health and well-being, for example.

Until this changes, it will continue to assume that unlimited economic growth can carry on indefinitely, which is obviously not the case since - just to take the most obvious reason - not all resources are renewable and we don't always do a very good job of sustaining even those that are.

Interesting mrp and thanks for posting it.

Interesting video Jesse and very fascinating too.

Yesterday our student union hosted a public viewing of the film "Food evolution", a documentary on GMOs narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. A panel of four people (your humble servant among them!) was there to discuss the film and answer questions from the public.

The film was an uncommon thing... In a sea of documentaries proclaiming that GMOs will cause the spontaneous combustion of your autistic and cancer-ridden children, here was the complete opposite; a pro-GMO film that was not sponsored by Monsanto.

It had the same annoying faults as its opposites, though: dramatic shots of starving children with the clear subtext that only GMOs could save the poor kids; pro-GMO scientists being presented in a good light and anti-GMO activists being presented as idiots, and so on... It also cut corners when it came to details. Still, I think its basic message was sound and pretty important : that systematic opposition to genetically modified organisms is almost universally based on an emotional reaction to false information. It showed how the most vocal anti-GMO activists are not scientists but "concerned citizens"... who happen to make a pretty penny endorsing industrial-scale organic products and selling books on the evils of biotechnology.

On the panel was a fellow from the largest farmers union in the province. He could present the viewpoint of actual farmers, not activists or industry shills, something that was pretty refreshing. It's clear that certain inventions were a massive boon for the farmers, particularly glyphosate resistant canola. The fellow was also clearly pissed by the irrational demands of the public, a public that insists on perfect and unblemished fruit and vegetable but will then follow any fad that presents itself. In the case of GMOs, which are unpopular enough, he told us of the Bt potato (a potato that has been engineered to defend itself against potato bugs). McCain, the biggest potato buyer in the land, decided that it would guarantee its potatoes would be GMO-free. The Bt potato was abandoned. And because it was abandoned, the potatoes McCain does buy must be exposed to four times the amount of pesticides as the Bt potato would. (Remember that pesticides DO cause disease, unlike Bt potatoes).

Another panelist shared an amusing fact: that of the utter pointlessness (and even stupidity) of labelling GMO-containing products. Many activists insist on such labelling, claiming that "the public has a right to know". But what does the labelling actually mean? The panelist was one of the scientists contacted by our government for advice on labelling, and he was asked what quantity should warrant labvelling. Should we label products that contain 1% GMOs, the way many countries currently do? Couldn't we go to 5%, to show that our government takes the health of its citizens very seriously?

The panelist answered that the 1% value had nothing to do with health issues; it was the rough amount that is reliably detected by current analysis methods. It's set at 1% because if it were 0,5%, it would be hard to guarantee that something is GMO-free. As for a 5% value, it would be beyond ridiculous. Are GMOs safe to eat? If so, an acceptable value is 100%. Are GMOs unsafe to eat? Then the acceptable value is 0%. Besides, what does any such number mean? If a GMO causes a health problem, it will be because of what it IS, not because of how it was made. A tomato containing, say, peanut proteins might be a hazard to people allergic to peanuts because it contains peanut proteins, not because it is a GMO. And so saying "these chips contain 1% GMOs" is as pointless as saying "these chips contain 1% of products whose name contains the letter "p". It doesn't actually say anything. Far better to say "this product contains peanut proteins", because THAT can actually be useful to know.

Something I appreciated in the film is how scientists and farmers who are neither green activists nor Monsanto employees agree that there is no natural conflict between GMOs and a greener agriculture. Reducing the amount of pesticides we use is certainly a worthwhile goal, and while this can be done in a purely "organic" way, it can also be done using GMOs. Better, even, because the latter will allow greater yields.

The take home message was that like any technology, the development of tailored foodstuffs requires care and a critical viewpoint, but that demonizing it on irrational grounds is very counterproductive.

According to the Daily Planet, it's headed for Smallville, somewhere in the Midwest.