vue - Pamela Ronald (UC Davis) Part 1: Sustainable agriculture
http://www.ibioseminars.org/lectures/global-health-a-energy/pamela-ronald.html In Part 1 of her lecture, Ronald emphasizes the importance of developing sustainable agricultural practices that will allow the world's population to be fed without destroying the Earth. Ronald demonstrates that modern genetics approaches have facilitated development of new crop varieties that can increase crop yields while reducing insecticide use. She proposes that the judicious incorporation of two important strands of agriculture—agricultural biotechnology and agroecological practices—is key to helping feed the growing population and she provides compelling examples to support her stand.
Commentaires
-
Muchas gracias, gran presentación de los problemas y las ideas sobre agricultura orgánica
-
The way forward has to be making use of all that is good in agriculture, those wanting to go back to what they see as a traditional approach generally have no experience in food production. We need to make use of new techniques and if that means GM then so be it. We do not have the luxury of time on our side. Of course all this extra food production is only buying us time until and even bigger crunch occurs. The world must address the problem of over population, if this is not dealt with then we are doomed to failure.
-
Is the following summary accurate?:
1.) Criticism on GE/GMO (Genetical Engineering / Genetically Modified Organism) mainly and primarily targets its predominant current form, not the content (technology) itself. For instance, if biotek-inventions were more open (open systems approach) AND societally accessible they couldn't be misused resp. abused (patent-trolling, terminator-seeds, domination via ownership, restrictive corporate-policies etc.).
2.) If biotek-inventions in the predominant current form were not inherently [technologically] and, quite evidently, purposefully [economically] intertwined/linked with the sales of particular biocides of all kinds (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides ...), and didn't subsequently produce dependencies from these chemical substances, this would increase the trust in GMO and the image of GE in the human population.
3.) If it wasn't for the scientifically proofen record of all sorts of damages these particular biocides perform on the environment (e.g. neonicotinoids) this would leverage the publicly perceived sincerity of the overall biotechnological line of business.
4.) A holistic agricultural approach or concept would mean to integrate the fact that organisms are able to adapt by mutation (Darwin): even faster so when exposed to certain chemical molecules/agents (the more regular and intense the exposure the faster!) -- whether they be sprayed on the organisms from outside (conventional application of biocides) or be part of a GMO already. At the end, we have to expect superbugs, multiresistant, even omniresistant creatures as an outcome of a non-holistic approach. Correct? We all do very well know this Darwinian factum.
As a matter of fact, it's not just antibiotics which cause resistancies -- such an oppinion is just some kind of convenient folklore.
5.) Why, btw, does so-called modern farming remind an empathic human being more on war (genocide, biocide ...) than on anything else? How come that there is such a lot of destruction? Is this the way the human species, to a huge extent, deals with a challenge: burn it, bomb it, erase it, eliminate it, poison it.
Well, the vocabulary undeniably seems to indicate this, hence the trial to euphemise these war-terms (analogically to: concentration camp instead of extermination camp). Like that, a herbicide suddenly becomes a protective agent or so.
6.) As the video proposes, a synthesis of organic farming and GE would yield best overall results. This sounds plausible to me! However, in such a case GE would need to change its current form in order to meet the requirements of organic farming, right? Evidently, it couldn't be the other way round -- where would the organic component be in this new mix otherwise?
7.) Cambrian Genomics (USA) seems to propagate the usage of biotek decentrally in every household, so to speak. Basically, next to a 3D printer there would be a DNA printer in the near future -- for everyone. Is this a feasable approach to solve the issues of openness and accessability mentioned in my first bullet point?
Please be sincere, honest and unbiased in your feedback! -
please visit; india's century old traditional agriculture in youtube
-
She so obviously doesn't believe in what she's saying.
-
Great topic but boring presenter.
-
the data shows that there is adverse affects with GMO. soil is important...
-
nice vid. thanks!
-
The Indian suicide thing is a myth that has been spread so often even native Indians believe it now.
-
WRT "double production", based on UN pop. projections, we'd need to produce more in the next 38 years than was produced in total from 1900 until now. = NGFH (not going to fkn happen). And, if 'we' did, there would then be 9 billion breeding misery monkeys WRT the unsupported assertion that "failure is not an option", I agree only in that failure IS the inevitable outcome (not an option). Problems have solutions but predicaments have consequences. Welcome to the world of consequences!
-
If this report in 22:22 is true why is it that Cotton farmers in India are committing suicide by drinking their pesticides because their crop fails, in contrast to what you promise to them for a higher harvest, that is why Prince Charles put up a foundation to address the family of those farmers who committed suicide.
42Évaluation