The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".
The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".
However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Reaction to article
I read this article with some interest.
The part that made me scribble this little post is this:
"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."
Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.
The part that made me scribble this little post is this:
"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."
Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Battle at Kruger National Park
Amazing, amazing video captured by tourists, and it won a National Geographic award. It's almost a whole ecology and evolutionary biology lesson in this video. Now watch it here!
(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)
(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comments on Summary of Survey Results on Biological Conservation Attitudes
I just read the survey results here.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pesticide DDT Shows Up in Antarctic Penguins
"By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Truth Makes Things Difficult, But Untruths Can Be Fatal
I had really wanted to write this as soon as that the ridiculous description of macaque behaviour appeared in the newspapers, but as I was busy and Dr. Michael Gummert had written a splendid response, I had an excuse to procrastinate longer on the issue. Anyhow, for some reason, I remembered something that was put up by some vegetarian society sometime back, and it finally gave me some impetus to write something about this - the truth.
Singaporeans are generally a cowardly bunch. We see wrong in the streets but we gawk and take videos and put it on STOMP instead of stopping whatever that is going on. We have grown adults fleeing at the sight of an Oriental Whip Snake. We build houses right in the middle of macaque land and run out bawling like spoilt babies when the original landlords decide to visit. I have often wondered, if this irrational fear of animals and wildlife is a result of years of conditioning by lies when we were all children. The macaque mis-reporting certainly has made me more sure of it. I shall not repeat what Michael said, he's said everything there is to say about the issue. However, the point to make is this: how many macaques (or other animals), have been trapped / killed by this lie-driven irrational fear?
The vegetarian movement suffers the same. A (probably) well-intentioned movement it may be, but perhaps the emotions, or the desperation for it to succeed have often driven such movements to base their arguments on half- or un-truths. The vegetarian movement in NUS had an argument identical to the one posted on this website. However, so much of their arguments are false. It had listed 7 points comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores and have portrayed humans seemingly to be identical to herbivores. However, there is a single point that they have neglected to consider (either out of ignorance or on purpose). Humans are primates. And they have all the characteristics that the seven points mentioned. However, great ape primates eat meat. Chimpanzees and Orang Utans hunt. Early man hunted. We possess an entire battery of enzymes capable of digesting animal matter, BUT we do not have a developed caecum of herbivores. Of course, I'm not saying that we AREN'T meant to eat plant matter, but that our physiology is meant for a omnivorous diet, tending probably to more plant than animal matter.
The vegetarian movement in all likelihood started from people who were affected by seeing animals in farms and slaughterhouses. But to argue for it from a flawed viewpoint and conveniently ignoring counter-points borders on dishonesty, and for those among us who know a bit of biology, the movement is a failure.
From the environmental point of view, I have mentioned in an earlier post, that agriculture is probably at least part of the reason that the planet is so screwed up now. To move from omnivorous to vegetarian diets will just mean that forests will be cleared for planting crops. The problem is that the planet is overpopulated with Homo sapiens living environmentally unsustainable lifestyles.
Singaporeans are generally a cowardly bunch. We see wrong in the streets but we gawk and take videos and put it on STOMP instead of stopping whatever that is going on. We have grown adults fleeing at the sight of an Oriental Whip Snake. We build houses right in the middle of macaque land and run out bawling like spoilt babies when the original landlords decide to visit. I have often wondered, if this irrational fear of animals and wildlife is a result of years of conditioning by lies when we were all children. The macaque mis-reporting certainly has made me more sure of it. I shall not repeat what Michael said, he's said everything there is to say about the issue. However, the point to make is this: how many macaques (or other animals), have been trapped / killed by this lie-driven irrational fear?
The vegetarian movement suffers the same. A (probably) well-intentioned movement it may be, but perhaps the emotions, or the desperation for it to succeed have often driven such movements to base their arguments on half- or un-truths. The vegetarian movement in NUS had an argument identical to the one posted on this website. However, so much of their arguments are false. It had listed 7 points comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores and have portrayed humans seemingly to be identical to herbivores. However, there is a single point that they have neglected to consider (either out of ignorance or on purpose). Humans are primates. And they have all the characteristics that the seven points mentioned. However, great ape primates eat meat. Chimpanzees and Orang Utans hunt. Early man hunted. We possess an entire battery of enzymes capable of digesting animal matter, BUT we do not have a developed caecum of herbivores. Of course, I'm not saying that we AREN'T meant to eat plant matter, but that our physiology is meant for a omnivorous diet, tending probably to more plant than animal matter.
The vegetarian movement in all likelihood started from people who were affected by seeing animals in farms and slaughterhouses. But to argue for it from a flawed viewpoint and conveniently ignoring counter-points borders on dishonesty, and for those among us who know a bit of biology, the movement is a failure.
From the environmental point of view, I have mentioned in an earlier post, that agriculture is probably at least part of the reason that the planet is so screwed up now. To move from omnivorous to vegetarian diets will just mean that forests will be cleared for planting crops. The problem is that the planet is overpopulated with Homo sapiens living environmentally unsustainable lifestyles.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Earth Hour and Coal-fired Power Plants
The happenings in the past week over Earth Hour and the Tuas power plant has reinforced further my stand that there should be an ecologist / conservation scientist in a cabinet over-populated with engineers and economists. I’m not sure if the government intended to thrust him out in the open, but it seems Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran must bear a lot of criticism for a lot of the things that have happened that are not very green.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Love of Nature from Parents
I love reading, and especially love the feeling you get when the author makes a point so powerful, you feel like a train just ran over you. Here's an excerpt from Dr. Jane Goodall's book, Reason for Hope. It's a story that she's told time and again, whenever you attend her lectures, about her trying to find how how chickens lay their eggs as a child. In summary, she had hidden herself in the chicken coop for 4 hours at least, waiting for a hen to enter and lay an egg, while elsewhere, her family (especially her mother Vanne) were in hysterics, thinking that she had gone missing and had even made a police report. The following excerpt describes what happens after she had observed the egg-laying.
"Filled with excitement I squeezed out after her and ran home. It was almost dark--I had been in that small stuffy henhouse for nearly four hours. I was oblivious of the fact that no one had known where I was, and that the whole household had been searching for me. They had even called the police to report me missing. Yet despite her worry, when Vanne, still searching, saw the excited little girl rushing toward the house, she did not scold me. She noticed my shining eyes and sat down to listen to the story of how a hen lays an egg: the wonder of that moment when the egg finally fell to the ground.
Certainly I was lucky to be provided with a mother wise enough to nurture and encourage my love of living things and my passion for knowledge. Most important was her philosophy that her children should always try their very best. How would I have turned out, I sometimes wonder, had I grown up in a house that stifled enterprise by imposing harsh and senseless discipline. Or in an atmosphere of overindulgence, in a household where there were no rules, no boundaries drawn. My mother certainly understood the importance of discipline, but she always explained why some things were not allowed. Above all, she tried to be fair and to be consistent."
It really set me thinking, about parents in general here in Singapore. I have often seen that when children go missing and then found again, parents just whack them. No questions asked. No thought given to the fear, or excitement of discovery, such as in Jane's case, experienced by the child. Imagine Vanne had been one of such parents. Would there have been a Dr. Jane Goodall, the Jane Goodall Institute and everything that she has done? If we really thought deeply, all of those things, inspiration to us and people like me, the survival and profound ethology of chimps and the livelihood that she has made possible for thousands in Tanzania, all of those might have hinged on that one reaction by Vanne when Jane reappeared, and thank goodness for what did happen.
Conservation, and nature in Singapore, I feel suffers from a desperate lack of parental guidance. Sure there are a bunch of parents who bring their children to guided walks and things like that, but a vast majority bring their children up on a diet of materialism, and the belief that humans do not need wildlife (both plants and animals) for survival. Zoologists and botanists are conventionally thought of as biology students who cannot make it to medicine. How many parents out there wholeheartedly support their children when they say they want to study zoology instead of business or medicine or law? We need a massive change in mindsets.
"Filled with excitement I squeezed out after her and ran home. It was almost dark--I had been in that small stuffy henhouse for nearly four hours. I was oblivious of the fact that no one had known where I was, and that the whole household had been searching for me. They had even called the police to report me missing. Yet despite her worry, when Vanne, still searching, saw the excited little girl rushing toward the house, she did not scold me. She noticed my shining eyes and sat down to listen to the story of how a hen lays an egg: the wonder of that moment when the egg finally fell to the ground.
Certainly I was lucky to be provided with a mother wise enough to nurture and encourage my love of living things and my passion for knowledge. Most important was her philosophy that her children should always try their very best. How would I have turned out, I sometimes wonder, had I grown up in a house that stifled enterprise by imposing harsh and senseless discipline. Or in an atmosphere of overindulgence, in a household where there were no rules, no boundaries drawn. My mother certainly understood the importance of discipline, but she always explained why some things were not allowed. Above all, she tried to be fair and to be consistent."
It really set me thinking, about parents in general here in Singapore. I have often seen that when children go missing and then found again, parents just whack them. No questions asked. No thought given to the fear, or excitement of discovery, such as in Jane's case, experienced by the child. Imagine Vanne had been one of such parents. Would there have been a Dr. Jane Goodall, the Jane Goodall Institute and everything that she has done? If we really thought deeply, all of those things, inspiration to us and people like me, the survival and profound ethology of chimps and the livelihood that she has made possible for thousands in Tanzania, all of those might have hinged on that one reaction by Vanne when Jane reappeared, and thank goodness for what did happen.
Conservation, and nature in Singapore, I feel suffers from a desperate lack of parental guidance. Sure there are a bunch of parents who bring their children to guided walks and things like that, but a vast majority bring their children up on a diet of materialism, and the belief that humans do not need wildlife (both plants and animals) for survival. Zoologists and botanists are conventionally thought of as biology students who cannot make it to medicine. How many parents out there wholeheartedly support their children when they say they want to study zoology instead of business or medicine or law? We need a massive change in mindsets.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Shopping to Save the Earth?
I've been meaning to blog about this but I just have been too caught up with tests and thesis submission. Anyhow, I am referring to Compass Point's claim that it's shoppers can "Save Planet Earth" simply by shopping there. . Let's try and dissect the poster.
First, it says, if the shopper spends $20, he/she can "Share" eco-friendly tips. Apparently the "best" tip wins the shopper $120. The greatest irony is this: The best eco-friendly tip in reality is to stop mass-consumerism, shopping, and advertising. I'd be damned if that won you anything.
Going down the poster, it says "Learn to be Green", and by attaching a loan receipt of four books from Sengkang Community Library to any $20 receipt, it wins the shopper a monopoly set, and a chance at %100 Metro vouchers. First of all, it seems they left the learning to be green part to the shopper, without specifying the type of books. Heck, he could borrow 4 books along the lines of "How to destroy Planet Earth in 5 minutes" and still win everything on offer. In any case, Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they'd probably just borrow books for the Monopoly set. And it still doesn't address the consumerism problem.
The next three seem to look a little friendlier, but two of them still require you to spend. And honestly, "Saving Planet Earth" is a load of bull. Planet Earth would do well without us. More like saving ourselves. These corporate people should get their perspectives right.
Now we look at the wordy parts. "Carry it green at Compass Point". Apparently, you spend $30 dollars and get a free Compass Point Shopping Bag. So if you spend below $30 you don't qualify to join the Compass Point (Pseudo) Environment Club huh.
"Shop and Learn How You Can Save Planet Earth". And then it says you get a free $5 voucher when you spend $100, I think with that Compass Point Shopping bag. I honestly don't see the link between the title and it's description. Labelling everything green out of desperation I suppose.
"Lucky Green Dips". Instant lucky dip with $50 spent. How's that green again?
"Going Green Saves You More". Even more bizzare stuff. It says, bring your own carriers or containers to enjoy offers from some participating outlets. And then one of the outlets is Best Denki. IF you buy refridgerators. Sure, my Compass Point Shopping Bag can fit THOSE. CITIGEMS are participating too, and you get a diamond pendant at a hugely discounted price. Point number one. There is no such thing as a green diamond / precious metal mining company. Number two. Retailers don't discount at such rates unless they are sure they are still earning from it. Too bad to those who bought these lumps of metal and carbon at their original prices.
The one that takes the cake though, is the Grand Prize of their lucky draw. You get a CAR!! Spend all the money to be green, then burn it all away with the petrol! How smart!
In a nutshell. It's a scam. CASE should get on their backs. Token effort is given about being green, and it's just a bandwagon to jump on to generate sales of ignorant people who want to be on the same bandwagon with little effort. This a blatant attempt to DELIBERATELY mislead shoppers. There no way to shop to your way to "green-ness". Unless you are shopping to buy forest patches to protect. Which Compass Point and their Frasers Centrepoint management have obviously no interest in. It's like "Buy more cigarettes and learn how to prevent lung cancer!". Bunch of bull excreta.
First, it says, if the shopper spends $20, he/she can "Share" eco-friendly tips. Apparently the "best" tip wins the shopper $120. The greatest irony is this: The best eco-friendly tip in reality is to stop mass-consumerism, shopping, and advertising. I'd be damned if that won you anything.
Going down the poster, it says "Learn to be Green", and by attaching a loan receipt of four books from Sengkang Community Library to any $20 receipt, it wins the shopper a monopoly set, and a chance at %100 Metro vouchers. First of all, it seems they left the learning to be green part to the shopper, without specifying the type of books. Heck, he could borrow 4 books along the lines of "How to destroy Planet Earth in 5 minutes" and still win everything on offer. In any case, Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they'd probably just borrow books for the Monopoly set. And it still doesn't address the consumerism problem.
The next three seem to look a little friendlier, but two of them still require you to spend. And honestly, "Saving Planet Earth" is a load of bull. Planet Earth would do well without us. More like saving ourselves. These corporate people should get their perspectives right.
Now we look at the wordy parts. "Carry it green at Compass Point". Apparently, you spend $30 dollars and get a free Compass Point Shopping Bag. So if you spend below $30 you don't qualify to join the Compass Point (Pseudo) Environment Club huh.
"Shop and Learn How You Can Save Planet Earth". And then it says you get a free $5 voucher when you spend $100, I think with that Compass Point Shopping bag. I honestly don't see the link between the title and it's description. Labelling everything green out of desperation I suppose.
"Lucky Green Dips". Instant lucky dip with $50 spent. How's that green again?
"Going Green Saves You More". Even more bizzare stuff. It says, bring your own carriers or containers to enjoy offers from some participating outlets. And then one of the outlets is Best Denki. IF you buy refridgerators. Sure, my Compass Point Shopping Bag can fit THOSE. CITIGEMS are participating too, and you get a diamond pendant at a hugely discounted price. Point number one. There is no such thing as a green diamond / precious metal mining company. Number two. Retailers don't discount at such rates unless they are sure they are still earning from it. Too bad to those who bought these lumps of metal and carbon at their original prices.
The one that takes the cake though, is the Grand Prize of their lucky draw. You get a CAR!! Spend all the money to be green, then burn it all away with the petrol! How smart!
In a nutshell. It's a scam. CASE should get on their backs. Token effort is given about being green, and it's just a bandwagon to jump on to generate sales of ignorant people who want to be on the same bandwagon with little effort. This a blatant attempt to DELIBERATELY mislead shoppers. There no way to shop to your way to "green-ness". Unless you are shopping to buy forest patches to protect. Which Compass Point and their Frasers Centrepoint management have obviously no interest in. It's like "Buy more cigarettes and learn how to prevent lung cancer!". Bunch of bull excreta.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Educate her? She knows!
I refer to the letter on the Straits Times Forum Online posted below:
Feeding wildlife: Educate uninformed adults
I APPLAUD recent measures to punish those who feed wildlife in public parks.
I was at the Singapore Zoo last Friday with my young son and came upon a girl, perhaps no more than 10 years old, feeding twigs to the goats at Children's World, the children's section of the zoo.
Next to her was her mother and a prominent sign that reads 'No feeding'.
I gently reminded the woman of the notice board. Her retort? 'Everybody feeds the animals'.
Her child continued to feed the goat, which was lapping up whatever she was picking up from the ground. This clueless child will unfortunately grow up thinking her behaviour is perfectly acceptable.
The innocent child was not at fault. The parent, an educated adult, should have known better.
What more can be done when harsh penalties have been meted out on obstinate offenders?
More aggressive education is key, perhaps to both school-going children and misguided, uninformed adults.
Koh Wee Hoon (Ms)
I think Ms Koh is too kind. First of all, if you are a Singapore student of age 10 and cannot read and understand "No Feeding", then something is seriously wrong. Secondly, if everyone was doing something, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
Third, where were the zookeepers? Fourth, why didn't more people point her out? This reminds me of something Martin Luther King Junior once said, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people". The world is going to pot, precisely because of this.
Does the zoo have some kind of punishment for these? Feeding animals where you aren't allowed to feed them, and running the risk of feeding the wrong things to them should be dealt with as the equivalent of animal abuse (and if you ask me, the penalties for animal abuse isn't quite severe enough). Parents who blatantly ignore the signs should be fined on the spot. Children who see their parents ignore the rules and laws may grow up to believe that either their parents are above the law, or that some laws can be violated. Cutting their parents down to size would go along way to enforcing to children that the signs cannot be ignored.
Feeding wildlife: Educate uninformed adults
I APPLAUD recent measures to punish those who feed wildlife in public parks.
I was at the Singapore Zoo last Friday with my young son and came upon a girl, perhaps no more than 10 years old, feeding twigs to the goats at Children's World, the children's section of the zoo.
Next to her was her mother and a prominent sign that reads 'No feeding'.
I gently reminded the woman of the notice board. Her retort? 'Everybody feeds the animals'.
Her child continued to feed the goat, which was lapping up whatever she was picking up from the ground. This clueless child will unfortunately grow up thinking her behaviour is perfectly acceptable.
The innocent child was not at fault. The parent, an educated adult, should have known better.
What more can be done when harsh penalties have been meted out on obstinate offenders?
More aggressive education is key, perhaps to both school-going children and misguided, uninformed adults.
Koh Wee Hoon (Ms)
I think Ms Koh is too kind. First of all, if you are a Singapore student of age 10 and cannot read and understand "No Feeding", then something is seriously wrong. Secondly, if everyone was doing something, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
Third, where were the zookeepers? Fourth, why didn't more people point her out? This reminds me of something Martin Luther King Junior once said, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people". The world is going to pot, precisely because of this.
Does the zoo have some kind of punishment for these? Feeding animals where you aren't allowed to feed them, and running the risk of feeding the wrong things to them should be dealt with as the equivalent of animal abuse (and if you ask me, the penalties for animal abuse isn't quite severe enough). Parents who blatantly ignore the signs should be fined on the spot. Children who see their parents ignore the rules and laws may grow up to believe that either their parents are above the law, or that some laws can be violated. Cutting their parents down to size would go along way to enforcing to children that the signs cannot be ignored.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Criminal Education?
This post is in reference to Joe Lai's post, Embracing Nature Conservation: How?.
Dave Santucci wrote a short article about the inspirational powers of being in close contact with animals. I won't disagree with him. As someone who is out in the field relatively often, I know how it feels to be up-close and personal with members of other species, be they crocodiles or platyhelminthes.
However, to have to hold animals captive in an area that isn't even 0.1% of their original range is a different thing altogether. If done on humans, it is called unlawful confinement, except in mental asylums and prisons, because they are considered the lower end of society. Mr. Santucci has assumed that humans are different, are on a higher level. Isn't that being elitist?
People still have not understood the difference between appreciating the whale sharks and dolphins for their presence in the wild, and appreciating whale sharks and dolphins as toys. What the aquariums possibly promote is appreciation of the animals as toys. We make them do tricks, and ride them like the kiddy machines that mothers put 50cents into to keep their kids entertained for two minutes. If someone forced another person to learn and perform tricks on command, it's called forced labour and violation of human rights.
While I have mentioned that I am continually inspired by contacts I make with wildlife while doing field work, my love for nature, and wildlife came from reading, fighting spiders and catching grasshoppers as a kid, and unlike what Mr. Santucci would like to believe, from the television. Has he wondered why we use the term “wildlife”? These are majestic creatures born to be wild, free, away from urban, human organisation and oppression. Appreciation of nature must come through responsible education, not education “by hook or by crook”. When we want to learn French (or whatever) culture and language, we do a French immersion programme. We don't go to France and kidnap a Frenchman. The same principle applies to the Whale Sharks.
Dave Santucci wrote a short article about the inspirational powers of being in close contact with animals. I won't disagree with him. As someone who is out in the field relatively often, I know how it feels to be up-close and personal with members of other species, be they crocodiles or platyhelminthes.
However, to have to hold animals captive in an area that isn't even 0.1% of their original range is a different thing altogether. If done on humans, it is called unlawful confinement, except in mental asylums and prisons, because they are considered the lower end of society. Mr. Santucci has assumed that humans are different, are on a higher level. Isn't that being elitist?
People still have not understood the difference between appreciating the whale sharks and dolphins for their presence in the wild, and appreciating whale sharks and dolphins as toys. What the aquariums possibly promote is appreciation of the animals as toys. We make them do tricks, and ride them like the kiddy machines that mothers put 50cents into to keep their kids entertained for two minutes. If someone forced another person to learn and perform tricks on command, it's called forced labour and violation of human rights.
While I have mentioned that I am continually inspired by contacts I make with wildlife while doing field work, my love for nature, and wildlife came from reading, fighting spiders and catching grasshoppers as a kid, and unlike what Mr. Santucci would like to believe, from the television. Has he wondered why we use the term “wildlife”? These are majestic creatures born to be wild, free, away from urban, human organisation and oppression. Appreciation of nature must come through responsible education, not education “by hook or by crook”. When we want to learn French (or whatever) culture and language, we do a French immersion programme. We don't go to France and kidnap a Frenchman. The same principle applies to the Whale Sharks.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Man's Greatest Mistake
I never thought one of the random conclusions I make when I am thinking to myself could actually be (sort-of) supported by a renowned academic. You see, normally I read, and what the brainy people say kind of influences me, so this coincidence really kind of struck me. So what was that controversial conclusion? Here it is: Agriculture is the root of all evils and problems that humans are facing (well one of the roots, at least).
I should elaborate. Agriculture is considered to be essential to our lives. It provides us with our nutritional requirements. It allows civilizations to feed millions of hungry mouths. It’s become so deeply rooted in our mindsets that when we find resource problems, more often than not, we ask if agriculture can help (think biofuels from palm and other rubbish along those lines). Heck, some even wish money grew on trees! Looking at that, agriculture should be good right? WRONG! It’s not! In fact, it’s evil, and mankind is so hopelessly stuck in this situation, we can’t hope to get out of it for the next 20 generations, or we destroy ourselves because Mother Earth decides to purge humankind, whichever comes first.
Putting all your eggs in one basket
The history of “civilized” mankind has been marked by numerous famines due to crop failures. Agriculture is one of the great examples of putting all your eggs in one basket. Sure, you can plant corn and potatoes and whatever plant that can be grown, but when the drought comes, it’s placing like your basket of eggs (maybe different types of eggs signifying different crop types) with a weasel – they’d all be gone. Then what happens? Famine, death and disease. With the current severe winter going on in China, Japan and Europe, we might see this repeat itself all over again. Of course, the problem can be alleviated a little by having stores and stockpiles, but it doesn’t really solve the problem, does it?
Agriculture resulted in the flourishing of human cultures, or does it?
The advent of agriculture has been deemed to be one the events in the history of man that allowed cultures to develop, because supposedly, it allows people time to think, where the “savage” hunter-gatherers would be running around the whole day trying to find food. I believe that is widely off the mark. The Inuit are still hunter-gatherers, so too the Kalahari bushmen. Dare we say they do not have a culture? Or that we have a superior culture? With regards to time, the bushmen spend a maximum of 19 hours a week gathering food only. Compare that with the farmers, especially here in Asia, where it is considered a virtue to be in the fields from daybreak to sunset (hardworking or just plain inefficient?). The amount of leisure time is a no-go argument right from the beginning. Hunter-gatherers had even more free time than the farmers.
Health
Another argument put forth by many is that agriculture allowed the improvement of nutrition for humans. However, by now, we all know that most of agriculture is skewed towards carbohydrate-rich crops like potato, rice, wheat, etc., and certain meat and milk producing livestock, e.g. cattle, sheep, goat. Modern diets are lacking in variety. These in turn limit the nutritional values of our diet. In Asia, people cannot do without rice (not me though) but rice itself, besides being a carbohydrate source, really has much of little else. Including things like Vitamin A, which was found to be lacking in the rural poor (farmers) in India, and there had to be a Golden Rice Project to try and fix the problem (see, agriculture again). In fact, paleontologists have found that rather than indicators proving good health, like longer life and bigger build, early farmers had a smaller build and appeared to live shorter and were disease-riddled. The phenomenon of size has still not recovered, as modern Mediterranean populations, like the Greeks, Turks, and Italians, are still considerably smaller sized that their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Agriculture also meant that populations have had to be clustered where resources are, in order to have access to them. The increase in population and livestock densities thus results in the easy spread of disease, like tuberculosis, (bird) flu, etc. (By the way, I believe that bird flu is firmly the fault of farming, and not fault should be put upon migratory birds.) The clustering and the emphasis on storage of food and resources also resulted in another evil.
War
As agriculture gained importance, so did the necessity of fertile, arable land. The lack of such land will bring down any agricultural city state, and in order to get more land, a population cluster would have to expand, until they meet another population cluster, and tensions would rise. More often than not, the overwhelming desire for more land would result in the invasion and annexation of the lands of other populations. It is the same with any resource that is land-locked. Like oil. This doesn’t happen often with hunter-gatherer communities, as they are often nomadic tribes. The less physical people resorted to economics, but as the Chinese say, trade-zones are no different from war-zones.
Overpopulation
Well as many of us attest, the world is overpopulated. This is a result of agriculture too. Instead of a large forest with good food scattered through the area, we have now grown a lot of not-so-good food in a smaller plot of land, and exchanged quality for quantity. Nonetheless, it means that people are now able to feed more mouths, and so they they reproduce at an increasing rate. The limitations on quantity of food have been shown to limit the population growth rate in hunter-gatherer populations to a new child every 4 years, versus one every 2 years, in agricultural societies. This is because hunter-gatherer mothers had to raise a child until he or she is old and strong enough to keep up with the adults, something which is not necessary in a farming community where the family or population is much less mobile.
Class Divisions
Hunter-gatherers do not have stores of food. Essentially, they ate what they had gathered or hunted, and so there was no concentration, or “wealth”. Where there is a concentration of resources attached to individuals, then there are bound to be social “parasites”, like kings, and governments, which tax people, because there is a gain in doing so. You can’t tax people when they have nothing to tax from, and even harder when because you can’t bully similarly strong people as you into listening. On the other hand, in farming communities, it becomes possible for a small group of healthier elites to rule over the weaker masses, basically by bullying them into submission. Nevertheless, one hundred weak, hungry people can still overpower one healthy person, and so, social upheavals are commonplace in such societies (Also because everyone wants to sit and get fat while doing nothing).
The paper that I just saw that was similar was written in 1987 by UCLA academic, Professor Jared Diamond. The essay, “The Worst History in the History of the Human Race” (Discover – May 1987, pp. 64-66) is available online and you can get it just by googling around. He has just about the same points but he had a different order of thought, and he also mentioned sexual discrimination against women, which is an interesting point.
Agriculture is now probably an irreversible part of our lives. We cannot do without it anymore, at least in the next 20 generations. It has contributed in some good sense (we still get food after all), but is part of the problem as well. The over-reliance on agriculture has resulted in the over-reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and economics. We humans have basically screwed ourselves. However, we are the only species that have the ability to reflect, come up with solutions, and convince ourselves to endure certain pains in lifestyle changes (although we haven’t evolve to WANT to use that ability), and our species might still get away with it. We need to reduce our population that is for sure, as there are too many mouths to feed, even with agriculture. What would the future be like? Stay tuned, and find out, 20 generations from now.
I should elaborate. Agriculture is considered to be essential to our lives. It provides us with our nutritional requirements. It allows civilizations to feed millions of hungry mouths. It’s become so deeply rooted in our mindsets that when we find resource problems, more often than not, we ask if agriculture can help (think biofuels from palm and other rubbish along those lines). Heck, some even wish money grew on trees! Looking at that, agriculture should be good right? WRONG! It’s not! In fact, it’s evil, and mankind is so hopelessly stuck in this situation, we can’t hope to get out of it for the next 20 generations, or we destroy ourselves because Mother Earth decides to purge humankind, whichever comes first.
Putting all your eggs in one basket
The history of “civilized” mankind has been marked by numerous famines due to crop failures. Agriculture is one of the great examples of putting all your eggs in one basket. Sure, you can plant corn and potatoes and whatever plant that can be grown, but when the drought comes, it’s placing like your basket of eggs (maybe different types of eggs signifying different crop types) with a weasel – they’d all be gone. Then what happens? Famine, death and disease. With the current severe winter going on in China, Japan and Europe, we might see this repeat itself all over again. Of course, the problem can be alleviated a little by having stores and stockpiles, but it doesn’t really solve the problem, does it?
Agriculture resulted in the flourishing of human cultures, or does it?
The advent of agriculture has been deemed to be one the events in the history of man that allowed cultures to develop, because supposedly, it allows people time to think, where the “savage” hunter-gatherers would be running around the whole day trying to find food. I believe that is widely off the mark. The Inuit are still hunter-gatherers, so too the Kalahari bushmen. Dare we say they do not have a culture? Or that we have a superior culture? With regards to time, the bushmen spend a maximum of 19 hours a week gathering food only. Compare that with the farmers, especially here in Asia, where it is considered a virtue to be in the fields from daybreak to sunset (hardworking or just plain inefficient?). The amount of leisure time is a no-go argument right from the beginning. Hunter-gatherers had even more free time than the farmers.
Health
Another argument put forth by many is that agriculture allowed the improvement of nutrition for humans. However, by now, we all know that most of agriculture is skewed towards carbohydrate-rich crops like potato, rice, wheat, etc., and certain meat and milk producing livestock, e.g. cattle, sheep, goat. Modern diets are lacking in variety. These in turn limit the nutritional values of our diet. In Asia, people cannot do without rice (not me though) but rice itself, besides being a carbohydrate source, really has much of little else. Including things like Vitamin A, which was found to be lacking in the rural poor (farmers) in India, and there had to be a Golden Rice Project to try and fix the problem (see, agriculture again). In fact, paleontologists have found that rather than indicators proving good health, like longer life and bigger build, early farmers had a smaller build and appeared to live shorter and were disease-riddled. The phenomenon of size has still not recovered, as modern Mediterranean populations, like the Greeks, Turks, and Italians, are still considerably smaller sized that their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Agriculture also meant that populations have had to be clustered where resources are, in order to have access to them. The increase in population and livestock densities thus results in the easy spread of disease, like tuberculosis, (bird) flu, etc. (By the way, I believe that bird flu is firmly the fault of farming, and not fault should be put upon migratory birds.) The clustering and the emphasis on storage of food and resources also resulted in another evil.
War
As agriculture gained importance, so did the necessity of fertile, arable land. The lack of such land will bring down any agricultural city state, and in order to get more land, a population cluster would have to expand, until they meet another population cluster, and tensions would rise. More often than not, the overwhelming desire for more land would result in the invasion and annexation of the lands of other populations. It is the same with any resource that is land-locked. Like oil. This doesn’t happen often with hunter-gatherer communities, as they are often nomadic tribes. The less physical people resorted to economics, but as the Chinese say, trade-zones are no different from war-zones.
Overpopulation
Well as many of us attest, the world is overpopulated. This is a result of agriculture too. Instead of a large forest with good food scattered through the area, we have now grown a lot of not-so-good food in a smaller plot of land, and exchanged quality for quantity. Nonetheless, it means that people are now able to feed more mouths, and so they they reproduce at an increasing rate. The limitations on quantity of food have been shown to limit the population growth rate in hunter-gatherer populations to a new child every 4 years, versus one every 2 years, in agricultural societies. This is because hunter-gatherer mothers had to raise a child until he or she is old and strong enough to keep up with the adults, something which is not necessary in a farming community where the family or population is much less mobile.
Class Divisions
Hunter-gatherers do not have stores of food. Essentially, they ate what they had gathered or hunted, and so there was no concentration, or “wealth”. Where there is a concentration of resources attached to individuals, then there are bound to be social “parasites”, like kings, and governments, which tax people, because there is a gain in doing so. You can’t tax people when they have nothing to tax from, and even harder when because you can’t bully similarly strong people as you into listening. On the other hand, in farming communities, it becomes possible for a small group of healthier elites to rule over the weaker masses, basically by bullying them into submission. Nevertheless, one hundred weak, hungry people can still overpower one healthy person, and so, social upheavals are commonplace in such societies (Also because everyone wants to sit and get fat while doing nothing).
The paper that I just saw that was similar was written in 1987 by UCLA academic, Professor Jared Diamond. The essay, “The Worst History in the History of the Human Race” (Discover – May 1987, pp. 64-66) is available online and you can get it just by googling around. He has just about the same points but he had a different order of thought, and he also mentioned sexual discrimination against women, which is an interesting point.
Agriculture is now probably an irreversible part of our lives. We cannot do without it anymore, at least in the next 20 generations. It has contributed in some good sense (we still get food after all), but is part of the problem as well. The over-reliance on agriculture has resulted in the over-reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and economics. We humans have basically screwed ourselves. However, we are the only species that have the ability to reflect, come up with solutions, and convince ourselves to endure certain pains in lifestyle changes (although we haven’t evolve to WANT to use that ability), and our species might still get away with it. We need to reduce our population that is for sure, as there are too many mouths to feed, even with agriculture. What would the future be like? Stay tuned, and find out, 20 generations from now.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Not Everything Can be Priced
I read “Economics don offers unique perspective on Nature Conservation” in the “Battle for Singapore’s Green Spaces Blog” and it’s really infuriating. This is coming from one of the people being consulted by Singapore’s government ministries and statutory boards.
He, on the flawed basis that “Nothing is free” proposes auctioning the forests like the one in Mandai, to decide if the land should be developed. The extremely flimsy way of calculation makes no sense at all. There is no way in hell that the amount calculated from surveying so-called “stake-holders” will beat the price offered by developers (henceforth termed “destroyers”). If anything, it might allow them to escape with destroying forests at a lower price! Perhaps that is what Professor Quah would like to see? Buildings everywhere, with the only greenery being roadside trees?
He assumes that he is a more “educated” person than other Singaporeans (arrogant or ignorant?). What does he know of ecology? Of climatology? Has he considered the quality of the air we breathe when we are shorn of all forests? How that would affect our drainages? Would that drive investors away? It seems that in his ideal world, there would be no forests, no animals, no other forms of life apart from Homo sapiens and destroyers running everywhere offering more and more money for more destruction projects.
Taking this outside of Singapore, destroyers have cleared mangroves (number one target for economists like him, muddy, and smelling of Hydrogen Sulphide, and apparently costly to leave alone) and mined corals (to make lime for construction of buildings) in Sri Lanka. Christmas Eve of 2004, a tsunami hit and everything was wiped out. That tsumani took between 30,000 and 40,000 lives in Sri Lanka displaced 2.5 million others. In contrast, Bangladesh, with miles and miles of undeveloped mangroves reported a grand total of 2 deaths. In the Tamil Nadu village of Naluvedapathy, villagers had earlier planted a forest of 80,244 casuarina trees, which broke up the waves and only 7 deaths and “no psychological trauma” amongst the people were reported.
Yes, in Singapore we are sheltered from these. But we are still flood prone, and still subject to the effects of sea level rising. There is a whole lot of environmental processes to go into, besides the sentimentalism and aesthetics put forward by Prof Ng. It takes more than an economist to understand this. Economists, it seems, “must be educated” to use Prof Quah’s own words.
He, on the flawed basis that “Nothing is free” proposes auctioning the forests like the one in Mandai, to decide if the land should be developed. The extremely flimsy way of calculation makes no sense at all. There is no way in hell that the amount calculated from surveying so-called “stake-holders” will beat the price offered by developers (henceforth termed “destroyers”). If anything, it might allow them to escape with destroying forests at a lower price! Perhaps that is what Professor Quah would like to see? Buildings everywhere, with the only greenery being roadside trees?
He assumes that he is a more “educated” person than other Singaporeans (arrogant or ignorant?). What does he know of ecology? Of climatology? Has he considered the quality of the air we breathe when we are shorn of all forests? How that would affect our drainages? Would that drive investors away? It seems that in his ideal world, there would be no forests, no animals, no other forms of life apart from Homo sapiens and destroyers running everywhere offering more and more money for more destruction projects.
Taking this outside of Singapore, destroyers have cleared mangroves (number one target for economists like him, muddy, and smelling of Hydrogen Sulphide, and apparently costly to leave alone) and mined corals (to make lime for construction of buildings) in Sri Lanka. Christmas Eve of 2004, a tsunami hit and everything was wiped out. That tsumani took between 30,000 and 40,000 lives in Sri Lanka displaced 2.5 million others. In contrast, Bangladesh, with miles and miles of undeveloped mangroves reported a grand total of 2 deaths. In the Tamil Nadu village of Naluvedapathy, villagers had earlier planted a forest of 80,244 casuarina trees, which broke up the waves and only 7 deaths and “no psychological trauma” amongst the people were reported.
Yes, in Singapore we are sheltered from these. But we are still flood prone, and still subject to the effects of sea level rising. There is a whole lot of environmental processes to go into, besides the sentimentalism and aesthetics put forward by Prof Ng. It takes more than an economist to understand this. Economists, it seems, “must be educated” to use Prof Quah’s own words.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Where is the Balance?
Recently, there has been a lot of commotion in the nature circles over the turning of Mandai into a "spa retreat", not least by a long, rather scathing post by Joseph Lai. As I did my field work in Nee Soon (and hearing the Seletar Range firing away) I thought about the multiple land use in Singapore.
Singapore is a small country, and so the government has had to find multiple uses of a specific piece of land in the urban (High-rise homes or offices built over Multi-storey carparks over shopping centres over underground MRT stations)and the less urban (I refuse to use "country-side" or "rural" to describe any place in Singapore Island) areas (SAF training ground and nature reserves and tourist spots). But the contention many have is that what works in an urban setting may not work in a different, more natural setting, especially with regards to wildlife where you cannot plan things. Sure you can plan to build a resort with a good forest setting and a way to control the bugs, but will the bug-control result in the death of the forest and giving way to stale, sterile, ornamental plantation? (Yes I said it. I have a disdain for all the "touristy" flower places and nicely manicured, "planned" parks which are not natural at all) You cannot transplant animals into tiny cramped environment and expect them to behave as they would in their natural, wide-ranging habitats.
I started my conservation journey inspired by Dr. Jane Goodall's work at the forests of Gombe, how she managed to find a balance for the people there, between livelihood and protecting the forest. Singapore may be harder, it's too small, and our forests, frankly are not sustainable on their own, and need constant care. What's bugging me now, are the questions: Does this point of balance even exist in Singapore? Or have we passed it in 1850?
Singapore is a small country, and so the government has had to find multiple uses of a specific piece of land in the urban (High-rise homes or offices built over Multi-storey carparks over shopping centres over underground MRT stations)and the less urban (I refuse to use "country-side" or "rural" to describe any place in Singapore Island) areas (SAF training ground and nature reserves and tourist spots). But the contention many have is that what works in an urban setting may not work in a different, more natural setting, especially with regards to wildlife where you cannot plan things. Sure you can plan to build a resort with a good forest setting and a way to control the bugs, but will the bug-control result in the death of the forest and giving way to stale, sterile, ornamental plantation? (Yes I said it. I have a disdain for all the "touristy" flower places and nicely manicured, "planned" parks which are not natural at all) You cannot transplant animals into tiny cramped environment and expect them to behave as they would in their natural, wide-ranging habitats.
I started my conservation journey inspired by Dr. Jane Goodall's work at the forests of Gombe, how she managed to find a balance for the people there, between livelihood and protecting the forest. Singapore may be harder, it's too small, and our forests, frankly are not sustainable on their own, and need constant care. What's bugging me now, are the questions: Does this point of balance even exist in Singapore? Or have we passed it in 1850?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
