Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Text Wrestling.
In “The Oil We Eat”, Richard Manning dissects the agricultural aspects in modern society through his research and personal discoveries. Though this article digs into a variety of subtopics, the main focus seems to be on energy. The first few paragraphs of the article are used to describe the value of energy. Manning even compares plants to refined oil. “Aside from hydrocarbons [refined oil] they are the most concentrated form of true wealth—sun energy”.
The effects that agricultural activities have on plants are also a topic of the article. When naturally occurring in nature, catastrophes such as floods help plants to rid their competition, and let them rebuild their basis to grow in a better habitat. Manmade farms though require something equivalent to these catastrophes annual, which consumes a lot of energy. “Iowa's fields require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every year.” In nature, plants normally give up their nutrients to the soil beneath them in order for the next generation to grow more sufficiently, but on farms, these nutrients are forced from other sources onto the growing fields.
Manning also discusses the topic of wasteful action by farmers. One instance of this is when forests and prairies are cleared out for farm land because of the fact that the plants in the area were full of energy, and could have been at the very least been fed to livestock, instead of feeding them grains that are consumable by humans. The amount of fossil fuels burned is also an issue. “In 1997 we burned through more than 400 years' worth of ancient fossilized productivity.”
Of all the single crops discussed, wheat tops every other in the category of destructivity. Not only did it build empires and cause imperialism, it is now the cause of disappearing grasslands because of the habitat needed for it to grow. In the article, Manning states that “wheat takes what it needs”. Areas with grasslands, which are mostly neo-Europe, are responsible for about 80 percent of the corn and grain exports across the globe.
Human interference in the plant growing process has many cons. For example, creating nitrogen artificially made its supply so abundant that it is taken for granted. When dumped on soil, farmers tend to put an excess amount than needed, which runs off into streams and rivers, reaching other places and reacting with other things. Plants may need nitrogen in their growing process, but they did not need double what the planet was originally producing. “The Mississippi River's heavily fertilized effluvia has created a dead zone”.
The calorie ratio of product to process can range from four: one, to high than ten: one, which doesn’t even include the fuel used to transportation. The amount of energy used in processing products is at most instances wasted. Then again, that isn’t the only way it is wasted. As organisms are consumed any one another, only a tenth of its energy is passed on. This means that the 80 percent of grain grown in US being fed to cattle is actually losing nine-tenths of its energy by the time it reaches consumers. This is done so that cattle can produce protein, but is done in such an abundance that the cattle produces too much, and consumers turn excess into fat.
In broader terms, this article is about the destructivity that human activity is having on the planet. I agree with the point that other methods of obtaining and distributing consumable energy should be developed and be put into action in order to conserve energy and to reduce the amount of its wasting. I also agree with the statements about destroying unnecessary plants and biomes. What will happen with there are no more grasslands to turn into farm lands? How will the cattle that many depend on for a food source be effected by a decrease in their own food source?
Even with the information and points provided in the article, Manning fails to do a crucial thing: provide a solution. He does this for a reason though. No one really wants to believe his reason though, which is probably why no solution is provided. He may hint that living on a prairie and hunting and gathering food is a possible solution, but does clearly state it because of the fact that in today’s society, such a thing is impossible. Of course a few people here or there can do so, but what about the other couple billions of people? They still depend on the abundant food sources provided by this mass production, and this demand for food will grow along with the planet’s population. Imagine what might have been accomplished if instead of trying to save and conserve the planet, we saved humans inhabiting it by creating other food sources and researching alternative routes. The planet has overcome plenty through out its billions of years of existence, and will probably keep on doing so. Accept this fact or not: the way things are going on in the food industry isn’t going to change with a few slight changes pushed by protest groups of any movements such that. A great man by the name of George Carlin once said:
"We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves; we haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fuckin' planet? . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are fucked! Compared with the people, the planet is doin' great. It's been here over four billion years . . . The planet isn't goin' anywhere, folks. We are! We're goin' away. Pack your shit, we're goin' away. And we won't leave much of a trace. Thank God for that. Nothing left. Maybe a little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, and we'll be gone. Another failed mutation; another closed-end biological mistake."
The effects that agricultural activities have on plants are also a topic of the article. When naturally occurring in nature, catastrophes such as floods help plants to rid their competition, and let them rebuild their basis to grow in a better habitat. Manmade farms though require something equivalent to these catastrophes annual, which consumes a lot of energy. “Iowa's fields require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every year.” In nature, plants normally give up their nutrients to the soil beneath them in order for the next generation to grow more sufficiently, but on farms, these nutrients are forced from other sources onto the growing fields.
Manning also discusses the topic of wasteful action by farmers. One instance of this is when forests and prairies are cleared out for farm land because of the fact that the plants in the area were full of energy, and could have been at the very least been fed to livestock, instead of feeding them grains that are consumable by humans. The amount of fossil fuels burned is also an issue. “In 1997 we burned through more than 400 years' worth of ancient fossilized productivity.”
Of all the single crops discussed, wheat tops every other in the category of destructivity. Not only did it build empires and cause imperialism, it is now the cause of disappearing grasslands because of the habitat needed for it to grow. In the article, Manning states that “wheat takes what it needs”. Areas with grasslands, which are mostly neo-Europe, are responsible for about 80 percent of the corn and grain exports across the globe.
Human interference in the plant growing process has many cons. For example, creating nitrogen artificially made its supply so abundant that it is taken for granted. When dumped on soil, farmers tend to put an excess amount than needed, which runs off into streams and rivers, reaching other places and reacting with other things. Plants may need nitrogen in their growing process, but they did not need double what the planet was originally producing. “The Mississippi River's heavily fertilized effluvia has created a dead zone”.
The calorie ratio of product to process can range from four: one, to high than ten: one, which doesn’t even include the fuel used to transportation. The amount of energy used in processing products is at most instances wasted. Then again, that isn’t the only way it is wasted. As organisms are consumed any one another, only a tenth of its energy is passed on. This means that the 80 percent of grain grown in US being fed to cattle is actually losing nine-tenths of its energy by the time it reaches consumers. This is done so that cattle can produce protein, but is done in such an abundance that the cattle produces too much, and consumers turn excess into fat.
In broader terms, this article is about the destructivity that human activity is having on the planet. I agree with the point that other methods of obtaining and distributing consumable energy should be developed and be put into action in order to conserve energy and to reduce the amount of its wasting. I also agree with the statements about destroying unnecessary plants and biomes. What will happen with there are no more grasslands to turn into farm lands? How will the cattle that many depend on for a food source be effected by a decrease in their own food source?
Even with the information and points provided in the article, Manning fails to do a crucial thing: provide a solution. He does this for a reason though. No one really wants to believe his reason though, which is probably why no solution is provided. He may hint that living on a prairie and hunting and gathering food is a possible solution, but does clearly state it because of the fact that in today’s society, such a thing is impossible. Of course a few people here or there can do so, but what about the other couple billions of people? They still depend on the abundant food sources provided by this mass production, and this demand for food will grow along with the planet’s population. Imagine what might have been accomplished if instead of trying to save and conserve the planet, we saved humans inhabiting it by creating other food sources and researching alternative routes. The planet has overcome plenty through out its billions of years of existence, and will probably keep on doing so. Accept this fact or not: the way things are going on in the food industry isn’t going to change with a few slight changes pushed by protest groups of any movements such that. A great man by the name of George Carlin once said:
"We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves; we haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fuckin' planet? . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are fucked! Compared with the people, the planet is doin' great. It's been here over four billion years . . . The planet isn't goin' anywhere, folks. We are! We're goin' away. Pack your shit, we're goin' away. And we won't leave much of a trace. Thank God for that. Nothing left. Maybe a little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, and we'll be gone. Another failed mutation; another closed-end biological mistake."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
