Assignment 3: Part 2 ~ PRO Industrial Agriculture Group
Identify which stakeholders you might represent in society and outline the main arguments in favour of your reasoning.
Remember to also review the discussion board set up for the alternate position and push that group to defend their arguments by asking questions and sharing counter-points.
21 Replies
Let's act like pragmatists guys. We live on a finite planet, there are limited resources. However, we are lucky enough to live in a day and age where technology allows us to extend our resources through genetic modification. If we only had 3 servings worth of chicken in a coop we could boost it to 10 servings with some minor hormone injections in the chicken's breasts. In reality if we have a shortage of money and food, shouldn't we aim to produce more food and as inexpensively as possible? Should we let the romantic ideology of a "Family Farm" stand in the way of human progress? I'll leave you to think about those questions, feel free to give opposing viewpoints, much appreciated.
Agricultural innovation happening right now is mostly making the work of planting, harvesting, processing, and consuming crops faster, and less expensive. But we should also be focusing on eliminating health risks and many other downsides to agricultural innovation. I support the idea of innovation and moving forward, but this should not include pushing other areas of development back. Although it is reasonable to sacrifice certain areas of development to better others, we should keep our goals and future in perspective.
I am representing a conveniently unnamed third-world country. Most of our people cannot afford enough food 
. Innovative techniques would let our poeple get enough food. Bringing technology would also boost our stagnant economy, allowing for improvements that will allow us to become powerful 
. These methods usually make food healthier because they provide mare efficient conversion of energy, and many have no impact on the environment, and anyways, if the environment goes bad, it will happen a long time for now, and so why should we care if we won't be around then 
. For example, genetic engineering has no impact on the environment, allow for produccts with more nutrients due to being better at getting food from the plants/sunlight that the animal/plant consumes. Above all, we must save our starving people by allowing them cheap food. 
@ Duncan
There would not be limited resources if we did not keep industrializing. The earth naturally grows back, but only if we take care of it. Poisoning it is not the way to get it to grow. We can only keep our industrialized food going for so long.
This post was edited on: 2011-05-02 at 11:59 AM by: sarah
@David
You say that you don't care what happens in the future. What about your descendants? You should not only want food for your people now but also your future people.
As a consumer I would be in favor of this. It would reduce the price of foo dand make it more readily available making it easier for me, a consumer to consume the goods. The fruits and vegetable would also be enhanced and be larger, tastier and cheaper because of genetical enhancements. Food would come in more varieties as industrialising everything will allow goods to come from further distances without having the barriers of heavy pricing and food spoiling. Foods that were treated with pesticides would not have infections from pests and therefore be healthier, although this is debatable as pesticieds themselves are very toxic. Food would therefore be cheaper, larger, tastier, and less affected by pests, come in more varieties and in all ways be better for the average consumer.
For all I care the future human's can start dying off as soon as I die. In fact I plan to burn tires in my backyard to make sure that the world will end sooner
In terms of my descendants, it is no concern of mine once I am dead.
As a consumer I would be in favor of this. It would reduce the price of foo dand make it more readily available making it easier for me, a consumer to consume the goods. The fruits and vegetable would also be enhanced and be larger, tastier and cheaper because of genetical enhancements. Food would come in more varieties as industrialising everything will allow goods to come from further distances without having the barriers of heavy pricing and food spoiling. Foods that were treated with pesticides would not have infections from pests and therefore be healthier, although this is debatable as pesticieds themselves are very toxic. Food would therefore be cheaper, larger, tastier, and less affected by pests, come in more varieties and in all ways be better for the average consumer.
from the view of any consumer:
(kindof based on the chart)
Cost reduction / productivity improvement | can make more food in large quantities; it is first important to have Available food, then decide whether it’s environmentally safe etc. example – pigs, chickens are fed chemicals to make them fatter so they can feed more people.
Quality enhancement / sensory performance |the quality doesn’t matter if you can’t even get enough food to feed the whole world; we need available, accessible food first, and then the quality comes in. e.g. food made to be immune to pests, especially vegetables.
Consumer convenience / new varieties | again, variety doesn’t matter if there isn’t any food. The only way to mass produce is to genetically modify so that food can be immune to pests and grow well. E.g. I think they made different coloured peppers.
Nutritional delivery / “healthier” | before you can get nutritious food, you need to get food. Also, it is the consumer’s choice to pick what s/he eats – chips or apples. Genetically modifying might change some of the nutrients, but an apple is still an apple, and no matter what it’s still healthier than a chip. I think many vegetables are modified, and fruit drinks have vitamins added.
Food safety | you need to have food before you care about if it’s safe or not. But, of course foods like junk food can be considered not safe, but if veggies were made more available (through modifying food and making cheaper) then people have better options.
Sara, we have such a huge population and have hurt the earth so much already that it will never replenish itself. At least through industrialisation we can delay our impending doom!!!
Industrialization is poisoning the environment, and making the earth die faster not slower!
Our modern-day society is depending on the genetically modification of food. Organic food is not enough. We must develop new ways to make food cheaper, faster, and more of it. With a rising population, more food will be needed. With more food, food will lower in price, making it more affordable for citizens of the third world.
gkollins wrote:
Identify which stakeholders you might represent in society and outline the main arguments in favour of your reasoning.
Some stakeholders that might be represented are pro-innovation lobbyists, food company heads, some politicians,
Remember to also review the discussion board set up for the alternate position and push that group to defend their arguments by asking questions and sharing counter-points.
Some points for this are: the larger amounts of food produced allow for more food for those who would otherwise be unable to access it. Secondly, it's an exercise in the furtherment of the sciences, particularily biology. Additionally, this allows farmers to become richer as they will produce more food.
As a consumer, I am for industrial agriculture because it will reduce the price of food. Fruits and vegetables will be cheaper and there will be a greater quantity which will be provided to consumers. The lower cost will make eating and obtaining the right nutrition easier therefore easier to be healthy. This will also boost our economy and will provide jobs to the unemployed. Genetically modified foods are better; they have been altered to be more beneficial and convenient.
There is a difference between innovation and industrialization. In fact, innovations are exactly what will save us from this "unavoidable doom" you two are talking about.
ACtually, a study a few months ago stated that even if we stop all pollution right now, global warming will continue at the same rate.
However, it must be noted that indutrial agriculture will speed up the process even more, perhaps leading to destruction in the span of our own lifetime.
uts-carrie wrote:
As a consumer, I am for industrial agriculture because it will reduce the price of food. Fruits and vegetables will be cheaper and there will be a greater quantity which will be provided to consumers. The lower cost will make eating and obtaining the right nutrition easier therefore easier to be healthy. This will also boost our economy and will provide jobs to the unemployed. Genetically modified foods are better; they have been altered to be more beneficial and convenient.
However, foods modified to be genetically unique may be wiped out with a disease very quickly, which will actually increase the price of the crop.
I believe that we should continue with Industrial Agriculture. I would like to make a case against some of the more common arguments AGAINST Industrial Agriculture
-Threat of pesticides is exaggerated. It is said that pesticides will greatly decrease the nutritional value of our food and even make it more poisonous. This is false. Apples and other fruits already have natural toxins in them. If we use pesticides, we are just changing the toxins present on the apple's skin. Neither is worse. Not only that, but if all food was organic, you would quickly run out of space for enough food to feed our population.
-Threat of mutated species is exaggerated. Already we have 'mutated' species- corn is not the same as it used to be many years ago. With hormone injections, we are just speeding that process. And we can be careful, the same mistakes that are feared don't have to happen. Besides, wouldn't walking corn be super cool?
As a politician I would know that a lack of agricultural inovation would lead to a freeze in our ecconomy and a lack of affordable food. As production goes down, supply goes down and therefore prices go up rapidly. As well, it would lead to the dererioration of agriculture related jobs as the companies would not be creating enough crops to justify the continuation of farmers employment. Crops would not be tended to as well and could become less fresh and lower quality. To create sufficent supply quality many have to fall to uneatable levels. The meat industry will be destroyed as it depends on agricultural scraps, however that is what we would be forced to eat. We cannot survive without a strong agricultural base and and halting agricultural inovation would destroy the industry that literaly keeps us alive. Polution can be tackled with more inovation. Starvation is already a problem in some problems in the world and the prevention of modern agriculture will just expand the problem.
As a politician I would be for industrial agriculture for the interests of world peace. Our population is increasing at an ever-growing rate, and shows no sign of stopping. We must produce enough food to support this population, or else there will be starvation. Starvation will result in the desperation of the people and states, and will result in conflict to secure dwindling food supplies. Keeping in mind that many states have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, a conflict over resources could ravage our earth far faster than depleting resources can. There is no peaceful solution to this humans are fundamentally greedy, and food is a resource that is ultimately consumed and therefore cannot be properly shared (i.e. each calorie you consume is one that someone else is not). If people lack something that others have, and have the means to get it, they will use them.
That being said, sustainable agriculture is not feasible simply because it does not have large enough yields for our population. Non-augmented crops have been proven to not be able to feed us on a year-round basis, and are also extremely inconsistent, resulting in famines occasionally. Humans being omnivores with a cultural ideal of consuming meat, it would be difficult to produce enough due to the fundamental 10% rule of energy, and the limited space on our earth. The only way that sustainable farming would possibly be able to support humanity is the conversion of all peoples to vegan diets. This would be improbably as it would be costly, requiring mass social upheaval, and programs in conservative areas where people could not imagine a world without meat. Increasing the productivity of sustainable farming would fall under the jurisdiction of industrial and innovative farming, and I acknowledge that the two do not have to be completely separate.
I propose that we continue high-yield farming to ensure our political and social safety, to ensure that we do not destroy ourselves in a conflict over food. Future innovation will be able to solve the damages to the environment, as we humans have had a history of solving our largest problems. But attempting to remedy our problems now without considering the repercussions would be suicide.
I'm sorry- I didn't realize Oliver had posted something extremely similar to mine. I did not plagarize his work; I had not even read it before I posted. It is evident as mine focuses far more on the political and social issues around food production versus the economic problems that Oliver highlighted.
duncan
May 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM