( This is definately a rough rough draft. I have a few points which I want to make and the introduction, but the conclusion is not in here yet and there are more things which i want to expland on after more research)
Technological Impact on Nature Through Pesticides
One of Nye’s main focuses in his book Technology Matters is the impact that technology is having on society and the environment. Technology seems to be a driving force that is compelling society to change. Nye writes that “ The public has an appetite for proclamations that new technologies have beneficent “natural” effects with little government intervention or public planning. Externalist arguments attribute to a technology as a dominant place with society, without focusing much on invention or technical details” (27). Nye uses the source of Jacques Ellul to show a more severe and pessimistic view of technology. “ Jacques Ellul paid little attention to the origins of individual inventions, but argued instead that an abstract “Technique” had permeated all aspects of society and had become the new “milieu” that Western societies substituted for Nature. Readers of Ellul’s book The Technological Society were told that “Technique was an autonomous and unrelenting substitution of means for ends. Modern society’s vast ensemble of techniques had become self-endangering and had accelerated out of humanity’s control.” (28). When reading Ellul’s book you can take a close look at what she meant when she said “Technique”. “Standardization creates impersonality, in the sense that organization relies more on methods and instructions than on individuals. We thus have all the marks of a technique. What are the consequences? The first is that the problems created by mechanical technique will be heightened to a degree yet incalculable, as a result of the application of technique to administration and to all spheres of life. Toynbee believes that this organization which is succeeding technique is in some way a counterbalance to it, and a remedy (and that is a comforting view of history). But it seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that this development adds to the technical problems by offering a partial solution to old problems, itself based on the very methods that created the problems in the first place. This is the age-old procedure of digging a new hole to fill up the old one.”(12). I think that Ellul is absolutely correct in this statement. The affects of new technology on our society and environment is incalculable. There is no way of knowing the affects that these new inventions will have on us over time. We create new technologies to fix problems, which in turn cause more problems. There are many scenarios which we do not take into consideration. One such example of an invention which we created out of the desire to be bigger and better was pesticides. We created pesticides to make agriculture more productive, but we were in no way prepared for the countless health effects they were to have on both humans and animals.
Pesticides were introduced to the World during World War II. It was meant to fight some of man’s worst diseases such as malaria, and they were intentionally made to be toxic. One of the first and most successful pesticides was DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ). “Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was first used as an insecticide in 1939. Just a few grains of the white powder would miraculously wipe out colonies of mosquito larvae. During World War II, B-25 bombers sprayed DDT prior to invasions in the Pacific. After the war, DDT would all but wipe out malaria in the developed world and drastically reduce it elsewhere. (The National Academy of Sciences reported in 1970 that DDT had saved more than 500 million lives from malaria.) Paul Müller, the chemist who first turned it on unsuspecting flies, won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his work.” (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring) It is easy to see why no one seemed to be concerned about the possible health effects of this toxin since the first effects of it being released into the environment showed such marvelous benefits. How could anyone show concerns about an invention that had saved so many of our troops over seas?
Unfortunately, more people should have been concerned. It did not take long before DDT was being used regularly throughout America. “By the late 1950s, DDT production had nearly quintupled from World War II levels as municipal authorities took to spraying the chemical on American suburbs to eradicate tent caterpillars, gypsy moths and the beetles that carried Dutch elm disease.” (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring). It would appear as though DDT was one of man’s best inventions. However, DDT was a strong toxin that stayed in the environment for a long period of time. It also began infecting animals because it accumulates easily in their fat tissues. It did not take very long before humans were consuming these toxins through meat, water supply, and their fruits and vegetables. In the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, she urges people to become more aware of the health effects that pesticides such as DDT are having on humans. *go into further detail about this book and author*
Today, pesticides are still being used despite the banning of DDT in 1972. "Rachel
Carson's book was a brilliant piece of writing and a seminal work, but it's clear now that
she was more fearful of pesticides than was warranted," says Dennis Avery, former senior
agriculture expert with the State Department and author of Saving the Planet With
Pesticides and Plastic. While admitting that some dangers exist to the farmers who handle
concentrated amounts of pesticides, Avery maintains that the "Green Revolution" of
fertilizers, pesticides and genetically improved seeds has tripled crop yields since 1950 and
saved 12 million square miles of natural habitat that otherwise would have been cleared for
farmland in order to maintain the nation's food supply. But veteran environmentalist Barry
Commoner insists that pesticides remain a significant danger to the environment and
human health. "Enough is known now that we could greatly reduce and eventually
eliminate the harm caused by our use of pesticides and herbicides through organic farming
and integrated pest management," he says. "We are still exposed to pesticides in our diet,
and not much is known about their medical consequences. Since Silent Spring, the only
real improvement has been for the birds. Thanks to the elimination of DDT, the osprey are
better off, but I don't think we are." (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring). Barry Commoner is
absolutely correct. There are still many issues facing the way which we use pesticides and
cultivate our land.
In the last half century agricultural management has ignored the lessons of nature
and changed the way which we cultivate the land. Robert Traer focuses on this issue of
environmental ethics in his book Doing Environmental Ethics. “The use of artificial
fertilizer has produced higher crop yields, but degraded the soil. In fields watered by rain
only about 40 percent of the nitrogen in artificial fertilizer is taken up by the crops, and in
rice paddies as little as 20 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer is utilized. Agricultural
runoff compounds into streams has led to at least fifty dead zones in the oceans, one the
size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico.(201) Through the use of fertilizers and new
machinery we are changing the way which mother nature once provided us with fertile
land. “The use of artificial fertilizer raises levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium
in the soil increase plants growth, but disrupts the natural cycles of these elements.
Furthermore, using pesticides with artificial fertilizers, which is standard practice in
industrial agriculture, degrades the humus that maintains soil fertility.” (202) “Mother
earth never attempts to farm without livestock; she always raises mixed crops; great pains
are taken to preserve the soil and to preserve the soil and to prevent erosion; the mixed
vegetable and animals wastes are converted into humus; there is no waste; the process of
growth and the process of decay balance one another; the greatest care is taken to store
the rainfall; both plants and animals are left to protect themselves against disease.
Industrial agriculture ignores these lessons. It replaces farm animals with machines,
diverse crops and crop rotation with a single crop, natural fertilizer with artificial fertilizer,
and grazing with barns and stockyards where livestock are fed grain laced with hormones
and antibiotics to fatten the animals and resist bacteria that thrive in such artificial
environments. (203) Once again it is hard for us to see the costly effects our new way of
life based on technology will have on future generations. At this point in time many do not
see the need to be concerned with machines replacing farm animals and hormones and
antibiotics to fatten animals, but we need to be concerned. Humans cannot exist without
food, and the idea that we are tampering with our food and water supplies is a very scary
idea.
We are already begun to see some of the affects that previous actions are having
on new agricultural inventions. “ The development of higher yield hybrid seeds led to what
is called the Green Revolution. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution
transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250
percent. By 1994, however, it took four hundred gallons of oil to feed each US citizen.
Since 1994 the energy input in Agriculture has continued to grow, but this increased input
has not meant a higher yield, because the soil has been degraded and pesticides have
become less effective.” Many farms are now growing a single crop because it makes using
machinery easier to cultivate and fertilize, but it also attracts pests. This causes about 1.2
billion pounds of pesticides to be used in the US annually. “But pests have evolved
resistance to these chemicals. Despite a tenfold increase in pesticide use since the 1950’s,
crop losses to pests have doubled.” This is by far the scariest factor in this new technology
of agriculture. As we continue to become stronger through our inventions of pesticides,
the pests are also becoming stronger in their resistance. Eventually one species will
outsmart the other, and the consequence could be fatal to human existence.
Technological Impact on Nature Through Pesticides
One of Nye’s main focuses in his book Technology Matters is the impact that technology is having on society and the environment. Technology seems to be a driving force that is compelling society to change. Nye writes that “ The public has an appetite for proclamations that new technologies have beneficent “natural” effects with little government intervention or public planning. Externalist arguments attribute to a technology as a dominant place with society, without focusing much on invention or technical details” (27). Nye uses the source of Jacques Ellul to show a more severe and pessimistic view of technology. “ Jacques Ellul paid little attention to the origins of individual inventions, but argued instead that an abstract “Technique” had permeated all aspects of society and had become the new “milieu” that Western societies substituted for Nature. Readers of Ellul’s book The Technological Society were told that “Technique was an autonomous and unrelenting substitution of means for ends. Modern society’s vast ensemble of techniques had become self-endangering and had accelerated out of humanity’s control.” (28). When reading Ellul’s book you can take a close look at what she meant when she said “Technique”. “Standardization creates impersonality, in the sense that organization relies more on methods and instructions than on individuals. We thus have all the marks of a technique. What are the consequences? The first is that the problems created by mechanical technique will be heightened to a degree yet incalculable, as a result of the application of technique to administration and to all spheres of life. Toynbee believes that this organization which is succeeding technique is in some way a counterbalance to it, and a remedy (and that is a comforting view of history). But it seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that this development adds to the technical problems by offering a partial solution to old problems, itself based on the very methods that created the problems in the first place. This is the age-old procedure of digging a new hole to fill up the old one.”(12). I think that Ellul is absolutely correct in this statement. The affects of new technology on our society and environment is incalculable. There is no way of knowing the affects that these new inventions will have on us over time. We create new technologies to fix problems, which in turn cause more problems. There are many scenarios which we do not take into consideration. One such example of an invention which we created out of the desire to be bigger and better was pesticides. We created pesticides to make agriculture more productive, but we were in no way prepared for the countless health effects they were to have on both humans and animals.
Pesticides were introduced to the World during World War II. It was meant to fight some of man’s worst diseases such as malaria, and they were intentionally made to be toxic. One of the first and most successful pesticides was DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ). “Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was first used as an insecticide in 1939. Just a few grains of the white powder would miraculously wipe out colonies of mosquito larvae. During World War II, B-25 bombers sprayed DDT prior to invasions in the Pacific. After the war, DDT would all but wipe out malaria in the developed world and drastically reduce it elsewhere. (The National Academy of Sciences reported in 1970 that DDT had saved more than 500 million lives from malaria.) Paul Müller, the chemist who first turned it on unsuspecting flies, won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his work.” (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring) It is easy to see why no one seemed to be concerned about the possible health effects of this toxin since the first effects of it being released into the environment showed such marvelous benefits. How could anyone show concerns about an invention that had saved so many of our troops over seas?
Unfortunately, more people should have been concerned. It did not take long before DDT was being used regularly throughout America. “By the late 1950s, DDT production had nearly quintupled from World War II levels as municipal authorities took to spraying the chemical on American suburbs to eradicate tent caterpillars, gypsy moths and the beetles that carried Dutch elm disease.” (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring). It would appear as though DDT was one of man’s best inventions. However, DDT was a strong toxin that stayed in the environment for a long period of time. It also began infecting animals because it accumulates easily in their fat tissues. It did not take very long before humans were consuming these toxins through meat, water supply, and their fruits and vegetables. In the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, she urges people to become more aware of the health effects that pesticides such as DDT are having on humans. *go into further detail about this book and author*
Today, pesticides are still being used despite the banning of DDT in 1972. "Rachel
Carson's book was a brilliant piece of writing and a seminal work, but it's clear now that
she was more fearful of pesticides than was warranted," says Dennis Avery, former senior
agriculture expert with the State Department and author of Saving the Planet With
Pesticides and Plastic. While admitting that some dangers exist to the farmers who handle
concentrated amounts of pesticides, Avery maintains that the "Green Revolution" of
fertilizers, pesticides and genetically improved seeds has tripled crop yields since 1950 and
saved 12 million square miles of natural habitat that otherwise would have been cleared for
farmland in order to maintain the nation's food supply. But veteran environmentalist Barry
Commoner insists that pesticides remain a significant danger to the environment and
human health. "Enough is known now that we could greatly reduce and eventually
eliminate the harm caused by our use of pesticides and herbicides through organic farming
and integrated pest management," he says. "We are still exposed to pesticides in our diet,
and not much is known about their medical consequences. Since Silent Spring, the only
real improvement has been for the birds. Thanks to the elimination of DDT, the osprey are
better off, but I don't think we are." (Smithsonian/ Silent Spring). Barry Commoner is
absolutely correct. There are still many issues facing the way which we use pesticides and
cultivate our land.
In the last half century agricultural management has ignored the lessons of nature
and changed the way which we cultivate the land. Robert Traer focuses on this issue of
environmental ethics in his book Doing Environmental Ethics. “The use of artificial
fertilizer has produced higher crop yields, but degraded the soil. In fields watered by rain
only about 40 percent of the nitrogen in artificial fertilizer is taken up by the crops, and in
rice paddies as little as 20 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer is utilized. Agricultural
runoff compounds into streams has led to at least fifty dead zones in the oceans, one the
size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico.(201) Through the use of fertilizers and new
machinery we are changing the way which mother nature once provided us with fertile
land. “The use of artificial fertilizer raises levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium
in the soil increase plants growth, but disrupts the natural cycles of these elements.
Furthermore, using pesticides with artificial fertilizers, which is standard practice in
industrial agriculture, degrades the humus that maintains soil fertility.” (202) “Mother
earth never attempts to farm without livestock; she always raises mixed crops; great pains
are taken to preserve the soil and to preserve the soil and to prevent erosion; the mixed
vegetable and animals wastes are converted into humus; there is no waste; the process of
growth and the process of decay balance one another; the greatest care is taken to store
the rainfall; both plants and animals are left to protect themselves against disease.
Industrial agriculture ignores these lessons. It replaces farm animals with machines,
diverse crops and crop rotation with a single crop, natural fertilizer with artificial fertilizer,
and grazing with barns and stockyards where livestock are fed grain laced with hormones
and antibiotics to fatten the animals and resist bacteria that thrive in such artificial
environments. (203) Once again it is hard for us to see the costly effects our new way of
life based on technology will have on future generations. At this point in time many do not
see the need to be concerned with machines replacing farm animals and hormones and
antibiotics to fatten animals, but we need to be concerned. Humans cannot exist without
food, and the idea that we are tampering with our food and water supplies is a very scary
idea.
We are already begun to see some of the affects that previous actions are having
on new agricultural inventions. “ The development of higher yield hybrid seeds led to what
is called the Green Revolution. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution
transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250
percent. By 1994, however, it took four hundred gallons of oil to feed each US citizen.
Since 1994 the energy input in Agriculture has continued to grow, but this increased input
has not meant a higher yield, because the soil has been degraded and pesticides have
become less effective.” Many farms are now growing a single crop because it makes using
machinery easier to cultivate and fertilize, but it also attracts pests. This causes about 1.2
billion pounds of pesticides to be used in the US annually. “But pests have evolved
resistance to these chemicals. Despite a tenfold increase in pesticide use since the 1950’s,
crop losses to pests have doubled.” This is by far the scariest factor in this new technology
of agriculture. As we continue to become stronger through our inventions of pesticides,
the pests are also becoming stronger in their resistance. Eventually one species will
outsmart the other, and the consequence could be fatal to human existence.
Good start to your paper, although like you said its rough, just need an introduction to help bring the topic into play, not just rush it out there right away. You had a good balance of quotes and good information. It is good that you followed through with your own thoughts, but have a bit more say in your opinion. Don't have a one liner right after the quote, explain why you think it is good or bad or why you agree. Also, I know and can see what stakeholders are in place, but make them come out more, take a side from a farmer, not with just statistics, from the government, the pesticide producers, it will add more to your paper giving it a strong base. Just make sure to have your own say and how you feel about it. Overall good start, think it will be a good paper.
ReplyDelete