Sustainable Agriculture

My mother always said that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. A phase that seems very apropos for the dilemma I’m about to immerse in. A dilemma, my friends that no one seems to agree on and effects everyone. It is one of ethics; right and wrong, good and bad, an issue that goes back to Plato

and Aristotle. A dilemma where the driving question is where the line is drawn and how will we know when we get there. As a Biosystems engineer a lot of the time we make a living off of ethics. We are concerned with the environment, green energy, and feeding the world but sometimes we run into two opposing ideas and we have to choose between the cake and our hunger.

Background

Now, I said that the cake phrase was rather apropos and that is approximately 842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat and this is just the current amount, as the population keeps growing the number keeps growing. According to The World Bank’s website only 37.6% of land on the earth is suitable for farming, and

an even less amount is actually being used. Now a Biosystems engineer task could be figuring out how to feed a growing population with a shrinking amount of space in which to grow things.  This is where the dilemma I have been saying so much about comes in because the way we have been dealing with this issue is by genetic modification of our plants. This raises concerns about risk to wildlife and environment, to unexpected human health risks, and just the ethics of changing the conditions of a plant. So what do you do, feed the world or worry over potential risks?

A look at history

First I wish to make the point that most everything you eat is genetically modified. You can thank the ancients for that. Early farmers would collect the seeds of plants that grew the best and plant them again the next year, this selection has rooted out the “bad” genes and paved the way for only the tallest and most durable plants, a modification that was certainly sped up by the helping had of ancient humanity. Was it ethically right to choose these plants? Should have ancient farmers made this selection or simply gathered food and let the plants evolve? Where they playing God? Historically speaking farming is what allowed the human population to grow because it provide enough resources for the world. That fact is still true today. If my general ecology class has taught me anything it is that resources are the limiting factor of any population, and I fear we are reaching that carrying capacity just as hunter gatherers were until the invention of farming. We need food to survive.

Arguments

Click For World Population

 

Now today's genetic modification is a bit more technologically advanced than that of early humanity, so while I don’t think most people would argue the ethics of the ancient farmer same may not go for today’s society. You hear the words “hormones in your milk” and “pesticides on your food” and anyone would freak out, but what needs to be remembered is that these are very narrow statements. You could die from drinking too much water but is it fair for me to say Water Kills? 

There is the question of whether its right to genetically change a plant or animal for the benefit of people. Shouldn’t we just let the world be organic and grow and evolve with no disruptions from humanity? The fact is unless we are cool with letting people starve to death from the lack of resources, genetically modified food needs to exist in order to feed the 7 billion, and counting, people that live on a planet. In my opinion it is more ethically wrong to let thousands go hungry or die of starvation because of some belief that humans where meant to keep there heads down and not mess with the plan. I refuse to keep my head in the sand. If there is a way to help stop world hunger we are ethically bound to do so.

Japan's Nuclear Disaster Cleanup

Introduction

The recent Typhoon that has racked the Philippines has been making me think about the incredible

power Mother Nature has on it citizens. This recent tragedy has sparked my remembrance of the tsunami that hit Japan more than two years ago, and the resulting Fukushima nuclear meltdown that ensued. I proceeded to the trusty internet to see what kind of progress had been made on the disasters clean up. This fruitful search turned up what I find to be a very informative and well written piece by the New York Times. After reading it I became curious of the impact it will have Biosystems engineers and the judgments of our work. The article I read can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/world/asia/removing-fuel-rods-poses-new-risks-at-crippled-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?_r=0

The Article
This article by Hiroko Tabuchi is very well written and I believe a credible account of the goings on in japan right now. Tabuchi gains credibility in ethos because she has been writing for several years, the last five years at The New York Times reporting on the business, economics, and technology in Japan. Also, I trust this article because it is full of logos. She backs her clams in the report with concrete facts, citing certain dates and referencing well know scientist and professionals in the area. This article is also is trustworthy because it is clearly not an opinions article because there is practically no emotional pathos involved.

Background

The tsunami and earth quake sent the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (tepco) nuclear power this facility is projected to be a long process and the removal of fuel rods at Reactor No. 4 is merely one step. A step that happens to be potentially dangerous. The rods have to be removed by crane and if the casks are dropped, further disaster would ensue. “The company said it has taken extra precautions. The plant has been preparing for months, erecting a steel structure around and over the damaged reactor building and fitting it with a crane to lift the casks about 100 feet in the air.” Reports Hiroko Tabuchi. The entire cleanup process will have an effect on Nuclear energy and the engineers that are devoted to it.

complex out of control. A hydrogen explosion blowing of the roof of the spent fuel pool at Reactor No. 4 leaving its more than 1,500 radioactive fuel assemblies left exposed. It is this dangerous situation that is first on the long list of clean up that needs to happen at Fukushima. The cleanup of

Public Image

The disaster at Fukushima raises some important environmental questions, and the success or failure of proper clean up at the facility will have an impact on the connotation of nuclear power. If they Tepco team is successful in the cleanup the company will regain some of its credibility and it will give praise to the engineers on the team proving that there skills are up to the task. If the cleanup process goes well I think it will also lend a hand to the image of nuclear power. Events like Chernobyl and the general risk of harnessing nuclear power scare the general population, and with good reason, but I think that if all goes well at the facility it will show that even in the face of environmental disasters, nuclear power can be contained in a safe way. On the other hand if problems occur that result in further damage to people or the environment, the image of nuclear power will be further diminished.

Challenges for future

The disaster has brought up questions future Biosystems or Nuclear engineers will need to consider. The main question clearly is how can we prevent future disaster? This questions pits Mother Nature

against man made technology. Future engineers will have to prepare for natures events, earth quakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, etc. To do this they will have to consider the very location of a plant and design a structure that can withstand these events. Also they will need to be more conscious or the worst case scenario and be highly prepared if it happens.