Nature is all about balance. Fir foliage gives way to the Birch forest and this in turn is occupied by Pine trees. These are logical moves and therefore it is balanced and an entire ecosystem depends upon these forests and their changes. These changes are systematic and follow a definite formulated pattern staying inclined to the ecosystem. Therefore, it is a dangerous ploy to should cut down diverse old-growth forests and replace them with tree plantations. Similarly, Bonnie Azab Powell’s article named “The Failure of Science: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops” is a warning that genetic mutation of food or cash crops should not be encouraged as it would ultimately disturb and spoil the entire ecosystem.
The author correctly becomes much worried when it is noted that “We are paying a high price currently for our naivete about a highly complex industry and our blind trust that somewhere, government regulatory agencies were keeping a watchful eye over things.” (Powell, p. 1). On a personal level this is completely agreeable as this creates a sense of containment while our nature is being destroyed systematically. However, there are opposite views too. According to David N. Laband’s views, biodiversity is sometimes overprotected.
He believes that the community demands the unnecessary safeguarding of our biodiversity principally because a quantity of them is not accountable for its safeguarding. Only the actual landowners are made to bear the cost of protecting our biodiversity. Most of the city-dwelling residents want to have aesthetic landscapes, biodiversity and animal habitats but they do not enthusiastic to pay a cost for it. The administration is under pressure to enforce specific regulations that will induce the property-owners to reimburse the monetary obligation needed to uphold the different environmental amenities. However, it is seen that more often than not these people are unable to meet the cost and to sustain their living they opt for more timer trade. This clearly indicates that most of our environmental laws are required to be amended in order that all of the citizens equally share the actual cost needed to protect our biodiversity.
Otherwise, the problem would be more and the amount would be generated by the use of genetically engineered crops or organisms in order to yield more production. This in turn becomes harmful for the sustainability of the ecology (Laband, pp. 145-156). Thus, it is clear that in the end this author admits the fact that there is a need for change on the issue of sustaining the nature and thus genetic mutation of organisms or organic forms should not be aggravated.
However, it should be noted that nature follows a well-defined path of action so much so that it could be stated that each action of nature occurs due to a logical reason that moves towards a solution with mathematical precision the only catch in this situation is to understand the methods of nature with its various factors and variables and once this method is interpreted prediction or forecast would be just a cup of tea. It is the understanding and subsequent preservation that is necessary. Thus, in relation to the article we can easily agree with the concern of the writer.
- Laband, David N. “Principles versus Politics”. Part 2. Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial environmental issues. Ed. Easton, T. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. 124-221.
- Powell, Bonnie Azab. “The Failure of Science”: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops”. Ethicurean.com. 2009. The Ethicurean: Chew the right thing.