The industrial revolution ushered in a confidence and arrogance that mankind has maintained ever since. Man could do anything he set his mind to and nothing in the natural world could stand in our way. We moved mountains, connected oceans, defied gravity, harnessed electricity, and split atoms. Our preternatural abilities seemed limitless.
There were, of course, hiccups in this march of progress. The Titanic, the Johnstown flood, the Hindenburg, Bhopal, and Chernobyl are some notable examples.
Although man’s quest for knowledge has fostered many innovations, the drive for profits is what commonly gets us into trouble. Making the quick buck or keeping shareholders happy is what often fuels the brashness that can turn innovation into disaster.
As the sophistication of our technology continues to advance the risks of such recklessness become ever more ominous. Will we ultimately meddle too much with nature? Global warning and nuclear weapons clearly indicate we are pushing the envelope.
The growing catastrophe in the Gulf is a “live” example. British Petroleum (B.P.) and the oil industry in general have developed the most sophisticated methods and equipment to extract oil from the seabed a mile down, and yet not much thought and resources were devoted to addressing potential problems that could arise. In fact, they audaciously ignore such dangers in pursuit of profits and shareholder dividends.
Nature is so delicate and complex we may not discover all the consequences of this unfolding disaster for some time in both ecological and economic terms. No one fully understands the dynamics of submersed oil and what role currents, wind, and severe storms will play. And no one is certain how much oil is leaking and when the flow will be halted. Just how much oil is even in the well is conspicuously absent from sound bites offered by B.P. and the U.S. government. It is surely conceivable that the entire gulf could become a dead sea and ultimately spread its pollution to other shores including the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. The impact could be cataclysmic.
One thing we do know for certain is that when mankind meddles with nature there are consequences seen and unseen. The balance and fragility of nature is not something we can boldly ignore.
What prompted this op-ed was a New York Times article about the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) considering the approval of genetically-engineered salmon. That was disturbing enough, but to find they may not require package labels identifying them as such was shocking. This secrecy is not new to the F.D.A. We are already consuming genetically-engineered crops in our processed foods without knowing it.
The wisdom of age has taught me that two parties that cannot be trusted to always tell the public the truth are big business and politicians. Unfortunately, these are the two principal lines of defense in ensuring public safety.
You could argue that lack of government oversight of offshore drilling practices was largely responsible for the catastrophe in the Gulf. Now you have to ask whether the F.D.A. will exercise the proper vigilance or even whether it has the wherewithal to determine whether there is any potential risk from eating genetically-engineered foods. Is the public so desperate for more salmon that we should take this risk no matter how small?
According to the Times article, Ronald L. Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed these salmon, stated that these fast-growing fish would help supply the world’s food needs using fewer resources. I find it hard to believe that he and his company, which stand to profit enormously from F.D.A. approval, were driven by altruistic goals. Profit alone is what motivates these people and companies, and why they can pose such a threat to humanity.
Faced with such harsh realities, I want to make my own informed buying decisions as to what I consume. But if the government does not require labeling to identify genetically-engineered products we have no means to discriminate between what we may deem as healthy foods and those we see as potentially hazardous to our health.
There were, of course, hiccups in this march of progress. The Titanic, the Johnstown flood, the Hindenburg, Bhopal, and Chernobyl are some notable examples.
Although man’s quest for knowledge has fostered many innovations, the drive for profits is what commonly gets us into trouble. Making the quick buck or keeping shareholders happy is what often fuels the brashness that can turn innovation into disaster.
As the sophistication of our technology continues to advance the risks of such recklessness become ever more ominous. Will we ultimately meddle too much with nature? Global warning and nuclear weapons clearly indicate we are pushing the envelope.
The growing catastrophe in the Gulf is a “live” example. British Petroleum (B.P.) and the oil industry in general have developed the most sophisticated methods and equipment to extract oil from the seabed a mile down, and yet not much thought and resources were devoted to addressing potential problems that could arise. In fact, they audaciously ignore such dangers in pursuit of profits and shareholder dividends.
Nature is so delicate and complex we may not discover all the consequences of this unfolding disaster for some time in both ecological and economic terms. No one fully understands the dynamics of submersed oil and what role currents, wind, and severe storms will play. And no one is certain how much oil is leaking and when the flow will be halted. Just how much oil is even in the well is conspicuously absent from sound bites offered by B.P. and the U.S. government. It is surely conceivable that the entire gulf could become a dead sea and ultimately spread its pollution to other shores including the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. The impact could be cataclysmic.
One thing we do know for certain is that when mankind meddles with nature there are consequences seen and unseen. The balance and fragility of nature is not something we can boldly ignore.
What prompted this op-ed was a New York Times article about the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) considering the approval of genetically-engineered salmon. That was disturbing enough, but to find they may not require package labels identifying them as such was shocking. This secrecy is not new to the F.D.A. We are already consuming genetically-engineered crops in our processed foods without knowing it.
The wisdom of age has taught me that two parties that cannot be trusted to always tell the public the truth are big business and politicians. Unfortunately, these are the two principal lines of defense in ensuring public safety.
You could argue that lack of government oversight of offshore drilling practices was largely responsible for the catastrophe in the Gulf. Now you have to ask whether the F.D.A. will exercise the proper vigilance or even whether it has the wherewithal to determine whether there is any potential risk from eating genetically-engineered foods. Is the public so desperate for more salmon that we should take this risk no matter how small?
According to the Times article, Ronald L. Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed these salmon, stated that these fast-growing fish would help supply the world’s food needs using fewer resources. I find it hard to believe that he and his company, which stand to profit enormously from F.D.A. approval, were driven by altruistic goals. Profit alone is what motivates these people and companies, and why they can pose such a threat to humanity.
Faced with such harsh realities, I want to make my own informed buying decisions as to what I consume. But if the government does not require labeling to identify genetically-engineered products we have no means to discriminate between what we may deem as healthy foods and those we see as potentially hazardous to our health.
No comments:
Post a Comment