On the second part of the Bio Business revolution, the focus was on the different types of biotechnology to meet our ever-growing needs, and our even more rapidly growing greed. The possibilities for expansion and growth in this area are truly infinite, and are, thankfully, growing at a rate faster than our needs are, for now.
While advancements in the biotechnology arena are many, the reactions it has gathered has been equally varied, and interestingly related to the type of biotechnology involved. The most common objections were found toward green biotechnology, where adverse reactions toward GM food and the green revolution were not uncommon. With regard to red and white biotechnology however, few protested against new cures that could save lives or new types of packaging materials and other innovations. Considering these different reactions was a rather meaningful takeaway for me, as it was a good reflection of human reaction to change.
With so many changes happening around us, it is only natural for us to first recoil in fear, before taking an apprehensive first step to test the waters ourselves. This is especially so in the case of GM foods where alternative natural foods are not particularly difficult to come by. As GM foods become more readily available, and in many cases, unlabelled with an almost identical appearance to normal produce in supermarkets, people are slowly growing more receptive to these foods. As it may be a case of ignorance and failure to differentiate between the two in this situation, it would therefore be better for countries to label their foods and provide a good amount of information about GM foods to allow people to make informed choices for themselves. I’m sure that with the right amount of knowledge people would soon grow to accept GM foods as part of their normal diet. It may be an apprehensive first step, but it is the willingness to take a step, that matters most.
The topic of green biotechnology in this session (though Prof may be bored by the multitude of past presentations on the topic) was most interesting to me. This is partially due to the fact that food is one of my great weaknesses. There may be enough food to feed the needs of the world, but there could be a little more for my greed! Technology to increase food, is to me, truly a modern miracle.
I am completely thankful for the luxury of 3 hearty meals a day, with a few snacks in between, and it always breaks my heart to see pictures of starving children in developing countries, all skin and bones, who would literally die for food (or lack thereof). I’d love to see a world where people can have at least their most basic of needs met, and food is definitely one of those. To achieve food security, a condition where all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life is a wonderful ideal. But as Prof said, we humans are very good at coming up with lofty ideals that sound all lovely, but are really so far from achieving them.
The green revolution has brought about many benefits, saving billions from starvation. The video below is a short and succinct summary of Norman Borlaug’s work in starting the green revolution.
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. Norman Borlaug has literally planted much for the world to reap and enjoy, and we have much to be grateful for.
While the green revolution meets much of the needs of the developing world, the presentation on Aquaculture by Nureen focused on genetic engineered fish to meet, what appears to be to me, our greed. It seems there isn’t enough wild salmon to go around that we need to genetically engineer them to grow faster to increase production. Salmon and tuna, the 2 fish types commonly used in this process, are expensive breeds generally eaten by the developed world. With the implications aquaculture has on the environment, like the destruction of mangrove forests and overreliance on fish meal to feed the carnivorous salmon and tuna, perhaps it would have been better if we changed our tastes and just eat the other types of available fish. As Nureen mentioned, herbivorous fish are more suited for aquaculture, and maybe if we humans were more ready to adapt and accept that alternative we would be able to reach a position that puts less strain on our planet.
As I have seen from the past 2 sessions, biotechnology is truly an area with many opportunities for growth and development and the possibilities are vast and never-ending. As we grow to accept the different technologies presented to us, it is important to keep an open mind. The future is now, in the present, and we have to step into it and continue moving forward. I admit I have been pretty adverse to change previously, but thinking about these issues in class for the past 7 weeks has really opened my mind and made me more receptive to these changes, a rather significant step and definitely my biggest takeaway. An 8.5 for the great session this week and looking forward to more interesting lessons after the break!
technology and world change 