Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to boost agricultural productivity. The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.
The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant-breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant up-front costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.
Last, the insect-resistant cotton Monsanto sold to Indian farmers turned out to be susceptible to disease, causing loss of harvest and thousands of suicides.
Edith Borie
Karlsruhe, Germany
Magic Pill
Regarding Gary Stix’s cover story, “Turbocharging the Brain,” at age 40 (nine years ago) I was a physical and mental wreck: I was way overweight, and my mathematical abilities seemed to be deteriorating. I found a magic pill that lowered my weight (by 20 percent) and my blood pressure and cholesterol (both now “normal”), revitalized my you-know-what drive, and made my mind stronger than ever. The pill I started taking: triathlon!
Alexander H. Slocum
Neil and Jane Pappalardo Professor of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nonanarchist Pirates
Michael Shermer’s Skeptic column, “Captain Hook meets Adam Smith,” makes the common mistake about “anarchy” that it signifies disorder in social relations and the rule of the strongest by violence. Anarchy does not mean “social disorder.” It means “no chief or ruler.” Our common ignorance of the true meaning of anarchy persuades us that we need a violent Hobbesian state to “keep us all in awe.” We might have a better aspiration for our future evolution.
Hugo du Coudray
Professor Emeritus
Portland State University
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentMost anyone who can do basic math can tell peak oil production happened about 2005.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is even if there was oil enough, the number of drilling rigs are down as not much chance of production ever reaching 2005 rate. And only 1bbl for every 4 we use is being found. Anyone would be a fool to bet that peak oil hasn't happened.
That the problem is one of distribution more than production is highlighted by the fact that Americans throw away enough usable food to feed all the hungry in Africa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it sounds like what the oil company spokesman is saying is they raised their oil price to $145.00 per barrel to starve Americans to teach them a lesson not to throw away all their food and we still have a great reserve of oil that has not reached its peak. And that the oil price will come down when Americans have learn their lesson.
I would describe in great detail what kind of scum-bags I think the oil companys are, but I am sure SciAm would delete the comment, so, it will be better to let the electric cars and nuclear energy power plants say it for us.
I do have to say this though whither SciAm deletes it or not.... You oil tycoons are "Low life sewage sucking paracitic scum".
Maugeri's reply basically translates to "Screw you guys, my interests generate ten figures a year. As long as the dough keeps rolling in I don't give a damn about how tightly you consumers get squeezed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall me a fool then. I don't think we have even scratched the surface on the available oil in the planet. Current production rates are stagnant, not because of limits on available oil, but because there isn't enough demand to keep the price high enough to justify the expense of producing more oil. The only evidence I need for this is the current price of oil and how the bottom fell out recently. The only peak we may have reached is a peak in production from large pockets of oil that are extremely easy to get to, but to think that these vast pockets themselves represent the total of available oil is similar to making the argument that the water in the rivers represents the majority of the water on a continent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often have this same debate with people who worry about over-population. Just take a few long flights around the world and you'll begin to get an idea of just how big this planet is. If you dropped a random probe from space, the odds are that it will land somewhere miles away from any human beings.
kfreels,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your evidence for just scratching the surface is what? Despite high prices and rising consumption (fed partly by dwindling oil stocks) up to under 2 years ago, oil discovery still hasn't exceeded consumption since the 80s. Yes, the oil price plummeted as the recession kicked in and consumption fell. What a surprise. But it is now back in the 70-80 dollar range, which is historically high, as consumption creeps back up.
Of course there are small pockets of oil around and, who knows, there may be as much as you imagine, but the point is that the easy oil has gone. It will not be easy, and may be impossible, to replace the declining production from the giant fields of the past (many of which are still producing significant amounts), with a myriad of scattered fields, never mind increasing production. If the world's economies continue their recovery, there is only one way the oil price will go, and high oil prices generally trigger recessions, so expect another real soon.
As for dropping a random probe from space and its landing miles from any human beings, you're right. After all, the vast majority of the earth's surface is water. On land, the picture is very different. Take a look out of that window on your next flight and consider how much habitable land (i.e. not mountain tops and the like) had been affected by humans and how much has been highly damaged.
There's a basic principal (principle?) of physics that you may not know about - each barrel of oil takes a certain amount of energy to get from under ground or in sands or whatever, to above ground and in your car or your furnace. No matter what the price of oil is, once it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the energy you get from the oil, it's over. Market forces will not change the laws of physics. The arguments about efficiency and research are just smoke and mirrors. So there is a point where, once we're out we're out and that's it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about techniques that improve oil output per well? There's another side to technological improvements: the 1/2 way point of total planetary petrofuel reserves gets pushed back every now and then by better methods for extracting or finding it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd there's a company in California that claims to have found a way to produce gasoline directly from CO2 emissions at coal- or gas-fired power plants. Not sure about the thermodynamics, but there are a lot of ways forward.
In the meantime, it's fine if our species learns a few new tricks - like respect for our planet, and wiser use of resources. It shouldn't take a dire situation to get us all paying attention to the size of our footprints.
There are not a lot of ways forward for oil. Extraction technologies can either delay the peak or soften the decline for a while but it only buys time if something is done with that time. As for combining hydrogen and carbon from CO2 emissions, that sounds like a good energy return - not. It may have some small economic and climate value but it's not going to replace oil declines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think respect for our planet is a good strategy then why not do that as a first course of action? We don't do that because people believe in infinite resources.
I've listened to the P.O. debate online for years and one thing is clear, it is not a debate of logic or science but one of faith. All the facts, figures, charts, metaphors and harangues imaginable will not sway a person one way or another from their initial basic reaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile some are happy filling spreadsheets and charts with facts and speculations, others search endlessly for analogs on easter island and whaling boats and in the stone age.
But no matter which side of the debate a person instinctively starts, it's unlikely they'll change their behavior and more unlikely still they'll change their "belief".
The reason I subscribe to Scientific American is because you present a wide variety of topics and theories in a way that those of us outside the scientific community can understand. I read every article and learn something new each time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I am really disappointed with recent articles by Steve Mirsky especially Greenhouse Bananas , Feb. 2010. This article is filled with unprofessional opinion, unproven facts, and childish name calling. Calling a U.S. Senator a clown and a gleeful anarchist is the lowest form of debate, let alone disrespectful. Even high school classes teach the proper method of debate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mirsky, like so many of his socialist friends, do not believe in an honest debate of the issues. Their attitude is that anyone can speak his mind as long as they agree with their position. If you dont subscribe to my opinion or theory, you are undoubtedly a clown, a raciest, a capitalist polluter, and a dog torturer.
The jury is still out on Global Warming and will be for quite awhile as more factual information comes to light. Argue on either side of the issue you choose to believe in but keep it honest and professional. Mr. Mirsky is neither and doesnt belong in your publication.
No Unscientific Editors Please
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I subscribe to Scientific American is because you present a wide variety of topics and theories in a way that those of us outside the scientific community can understand. I read every article and learn something new each time.
However, I am really disappointed with recent articles by Steve Mirsky especially “Greenhouse Bananas”, Feb. 2010. This article is filled with unprofessional opinion, unproven facts, and childish name calling. Calling a U.S. Senator a clown and a gleeful anarchist is the lowest form of debate, let alone disrespectful. Even high school classes teach the proper method of debate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mirsky, like so many of his socialist friends, do not believe in an honest debate of the issues. Their attitude is that anyone can speak his mind as long as they agree with their position. If you don’t subscribe to my opinion or theory, you are undoubtedly a clown, a raciest, a capitalist polluter, and a dog torturer.
The jury is still out on Global Warming and will be for quite awhile as more factual information comes to light. Argue on either side of the issue you choose to believe in but keep it honest and professional. Mr. Mirsky is neither and doesn’t belong in your publication.
The heat on the climate change agenda and emission reductions for a carbonless future is bound to bring in technology that reduces demand for oil,and hence business as usual assumptions may not be valid.In transport and electricity production sectors hybrids and biobased systems as well as clean and efficient burning techniques and methods will reduce petroleum consumption.The hydrogen economy can easily take off with some political will and infrastructure support.The oil politics apart ,there are technical and policy challenges to be addressed before a parallel hydrogen or alternate fuel technology can really play a significant complementary or at least supplementary role .Considering developments on all these fronts including the drive on green buildings and technologies/processes/materials, we are not that likely exhaust oil resources and supplies that quickly as many reports seem to suggest.I bet oil will last till alternate technologies and fuel systems catch up,and that would be faster,I mean the catching up,than presently being forecast,particularly in the decade next.Post Kyoto is definitely going to make a difference in the way the world goes about using energy intensive and high carbon footprint projects and programs.The embedded carbon in materials will drastically come down as a result,and CCS is bound to be a major initiative as also REDD projects and returns there off.When carbon dioxide is sequestered in underground oil wells that are getting exhausted ,then not only more oil is squeezed out but carbon in air is also getting reduced.Some chemico-biological geoengineering focussed solutions and physical methods,materials and devices may also come in handy here,as some trends would seem to suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut one problem could come from deeper wells that are more than 1.5-2 kms ,and which can disturb methane hydrates on ocean floors leading to methane emissions in large quantities.This has to guarded against technologically ,or methods to capture methane needed.
SURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,CSIR,TRIVANDRUM,INDIA