首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Feeding the Masses a Load of Manure The Green Revolution Myth, Norman Borlaug, and World Hunger [A]Most people don’t kno
Feeding the Masses a Load of Manure The Green Revolution Myth, Norman Borlaug, and World Hunger [A]Most people don’t kno
admin
2016-04-30
39
问题
Feeding the Masses a Load of Manure
The Green Revolution Myth, Norman Borlaug, and World Hunger
[A]Most people don’t know Norman Borlaug. He’s the guy who is widely recognized as the father of the "Green Revolution"—the system of farming that combined hybrid seeds with chemical pesticides and fertilizers to grant the world significantly increased crop yields, especially yields of "cereal crops" like wheat, corn, and soybeans.
[B]Mr. Borlaug has been heard recently reproaching "extreme greenies" for promoting organic, sustainable agriculture, saying that such a move either would require the conversion of millions more acres of meadow and forest land into farm land or would mean mass starvation due to what he claims are lower yields from organic farms. With all due respect, we think Stormin’ Norman B. is out in left field playing scarecrow, spouting off about nothing more than the Green Revolution Myth.
Food, World Hunger, and Population Growth
[C]First, there is an obvious question about the logic of Borlaug’s assertion that the increased yield from Green Revolution farming arrived just in time to save hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of earth’s swelling human masses from starvation in the 20th century. One could just as easily frame the issue the other way around: Might it have been the suddenly increased availability of cheap food that itself allowed the global population to rise so quickly? Remember the old saying about "tasks expand to fill the amount of time allowed them"? A version of that may apply here.
[D]Another way to look at the question is whether the Green Revolution has been successful at eliminating hunger. It hasn’t. Since the Green Revolution kicked into high gear in the 1960s, there has been only a modest reduction in the number of people starving or chronically hungry. In 1970, there were an estimated 942 hundred million people in that category; in 2002, the United Nations reported that the number was 842 million. This modest reduction has been almost entirely due to lower levels of hunger among the Chinese population, with the number of hungry people increasing in most other areas of the world.
[E]It is true, of course, that a few billion more people are being fed today compared to half a century ago. But it’s far too simplistic to give the Green Revolution the credit. Two of the main factors that do deserve credit are improvements in seeds via hybridization and major increases in the use of irrigation, including the unsustainable over-pumping of groundwater. These factors plus the chemicals of the Green Revolution combined to put plant growth into overdrive.
The Downside of the Green Revolution
[F]So, if the Green Revolution did help increase total food output, what’s not to like? Plenty. The technologies of the Green Revolution should be looked at as the plant equivalent of steroid use in human athletes. A jock that uses steroids will gain muscle and strength faster and have a competitive advantage. But the big boost is not sustainable over a long period of time, and the negative side effects are well known and often catastrophic to the athlete.
[G]In the case of Green Revolution farming, the chemicals used pollute our land, air, and water; the switch from heavily rotated multiple crops to mono-cropping or dual-cropping reduces total soil fertility and the nutritional value of our food; and the lower number of seed varieties used reduces the genetic diversity found in crops, thus endangering the stability of farm output in the future. The side effects related to soil fertility and genetic diversity will ultimately take their toll. Indeed, yield increases in today’s farm fields have generally leveled off and, in cases such as rice and wheat, yields are beginning to decline in some areas.
[H]Let’s be a little more specific about the problems associated with Green Revolution farming:(1)Farmers, farm workers, and all of us are continually exposed to chemical pesticides due to their widespread use, with each of us carrying a body burden of the toxins.(2)Countless numbers of streams, rivers, and drinking water sources are degraded due to pesticide and fertilizer runoff.(3)Major portions of bays and gulfs are oxygen-starved coastal dead zones due to algal blooms that are fed by fertilizer runoff.(4)Wildlife suffer from genetic mutations due to the farming chemicals that contaminate their ponds and swamps. Notable examples: Genetic mutations in frogs and abnormal genitalia in alligators.(5)State advisories for locally caught fish are chock-full of warnings about fish species contaminated with pesticides.
Would Food Production Drop Without the Green Revolution?
[I]Now to the real point—would we starve if we transitioned back to sustainable agriculture and a-bandoned the chemicals we’ve come to accept as a normal part of farming? No, not at all. Multiple studies, including work by the US National Research Council and a 23-year study by the Rodale Institute, found total food output from "alternative" farms to be equivalent to Green Revolution farms—and sometimes higher.
[J]Cuba provides a real-life, working model to test the conclusions of such research. When the US trade embargo was imposed on Cuba in the late 1980s, the country’s access to Green Revolution "inputs" was suddenly severely restricted. Cuba began to reorient its agriculture back to sustainable approaches based on traditional farming practices and smaller farming operations. Within a decade, the country had solved its food problem, with the added benefit of freeing itself from the cost and toxic pollution associated with imported farming chemicals.
Wrap up... and GMOs
[K]As Lt. Columbo was fond of saying, just one last thing... The big agribusiness companies that brought you the hollow promises of the chemical-based Green Revolution I are now busy cooking up the genetically engineered(GE)Green Revolution II. Again they promise to save the world from hunger, but as before, their real goal is to reap bountiful profits. Not only do some GE technologies, such as "herbicide tolerance", not increase yield and farmer profits, they have been documented to have the opposite effect. In such cases, the only people benefiting are the GE seed and pesticide companies and their shareholders.
[L]There is a place for research and technology in farming, but we should stop trying to conquer nature’s complex, inexorable forces and instead should focus on approaches that work with the power of nature. A lot of research dollars went into developing Green Revolution and GE technologies. If instead we had invested in better sustainable-agriculture methods, we would have increased yields, retained healthier fanning practices, and greatly lessened the huge loss of small and medium-sized farms. In fact, demonstration projects have shown that increases in total food output of up to 100% are possible by using advanced sustainable agriculture techniques. Such approaches also reduce costs and avoid the chemical pollutants and potentially dangerous GE strains that are now upon us.
[M]We won’t be able to simply flip a switch and suddenly convert all the farming acreage on the planet back to smaller, more sustainable farms overnight. But it can be done gradually, without causing mass starvation. Indeed, better health for more people would be the overall result. We in the developed countries of the world should ask our elected representatives to begin a major shift in farm policy to foster such change. We can also directly support the effort by eating organic and/or locally grown food.
[N]The solution to global hunger is to solve problems related to democracy and distribution of income and food in the Third World. We should also ensure that the right to be self-sufficient when it comes to producing one’s food is not trumped by free-trade agreements. The solution to world hunger is not to develop expensive, unneeded technologies that endanger the entire food system. Just say "no"... to G-M-O... and the Green Revolution.
The application of Green Revolution technologies in plants can be compared to human athletes’ use of steroid.
选项
答案
F
解析
根据human athletes和steroid查找到F段。该段用了类比的手法,指出对植物使用的绿色革命的各种技术就像是对运动员使用的类固醇。本题句子是对该段第3句的同义改写。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/1nyFFFFM
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
A、Toinviteauthorstoguidereaders.B、Toencouragepeopletoreadandshare.C、Toinvolvepeopleincommunityservice.D、Topr
SevenStepstoaMoreFulfillingJobA)Manypeopletodayfindthemselvesinunfulfillingworksituations.Infact,oneinfourw
AccompanyingIndia’sindustrialtransformationhasbeenanotherrevolutionofprofoundsignificance.Aproperty-owningmiddlecl
Excitingnewresearchindicatesthatgrowingoldermightnotnecessarilymeangrowingmentallyslower.Newstudiesareproviding
Excitingnewresearchindicatesthatgrowingoldermightnotnecessarilymeangrowingmentallyslower.Newstudiesareproviding
A、Hewillwriteashortpaperinsteadofalongone.B、Hehopestowriteapaper.C、Hedoesn’tknowwhich.D、Heprefersthetest
Howmenfirstlearnttoinventwordsisunknown;inotherwords,theoriginoflanguageisamystery.Allwereallyknowisthat
Howmenfirstlearnttoinventwordsisunknown;inotherwords,theoriginoflanguageisamystery.Allwereallyknowisthat
MostvolcanoesarequietTheyrestpeacefullyforhundredsofyears.NoonepaysmuchattentiontothemMountStHelenswasone
Thee-scoreisaconsumerratingmetricusedtodetermineanindividual’spotentialvalueasacustomerandtousethatinformat
随机试题
A.圆韧带内的小凹动脉B.股骨干滋养动脉升支C.旋股内、外侧动脉的分支D.骺外侧动脉成人股骨头最主要的血液供应来源于
用变异系数比较变异程度适用于
癌基因表达的产物是多发性神经纤维瘤病基因I型易感基因是
中国甲公司通过海运从某国进口一批服装,承运人为乙公司,提单收货人一栏写明“凭指示”。甲公司持正本提单到目的港提货时,发现货物已由丙公司以副本提单加保函提取。甲公司与丙公司达成了货款支付协议,但随后丙公司破产。甲公司无法获赔,转而向乙公司索赔。根据我国相关法
内墙除楼梯间外,最少应加钢筋混凝土构造柱的数量为:
长江公司于2×16年1月1日以银行存款3100万元取得大海公司30%的有表决权股份,能够对大海公司施加重大影响,当日大海公司可辨认净资产的公允价值是11000万元。2×16年1月1日,大海公司除一项管理用固定资产的公允价值与其账面价值不同外,其他
在以下旅游者提出的要求中,导游人员应该婉言拒绝的要求有()。
Theyareregardedaschoresbybothsexes,butfalldisproportionatelyononlyone.ThelatestsurveyoftimeuseinAmericasug
将考生文件夹下HULAG文件夹中的文件HERBS.FOR复制到同一文件夹中,并命名为COM—PUTER.FOR。
A、Heisgoingtogiveatalkonfishing.B、Hethinksfishingisagoodwaytokilltime.C、HehasthesamehobbyasCindy’sfath
最新回复
(
0
)