The notion of a progress trap in not only in our past, it is relevant in the present. One example of this is the ‘farm-factory system’ we have created. I believe this system in a perfect example of a progress trap. Looking back at history there are numerous examples of civilizations collapsing due to over extrapolation of resources, this is very similar to our current trajectory. Natural resources are a finite commodity; they will eventually disappear if we are not careful and use them in a conservatory fashion. Also, the human population is growing exponentially. This only increases the demand for resources. People may argue that technology can save us as it has in the past. However, all new technologies can do is delay the inevitable conclusion; …show more content…
This is based on the premise that we have technology to save us. We have the potential to increase our crop yields with technology; an example of this was the “green revolution.” The “green revolution” brought about plants that were altered to allow them to be “hypercharged with irrigation water and chemical fertilizers, especially nitrogen.” (Manning, 2004, p. 41) This new technology was viewed as a solution to a possible disaster. However, “the green revolution is the worst thing that has ever happened to the planet.” (Manning, 2004, p. 41) This notion is based on the amount of nitrogen that is being applied to crops worldwide. “When farmers dump nitrogen on a crop, much is wasted. It runs into water and soil.” (Manning, 2004, p. 43) The nitrogen runoff collects in rivers and streams until it drains into the ocean. This accumulation of nitrogen causes “artificially large blooms of algae that in growing suck all the oxygen from the water . . . there’s no need to calculate long-term effects, because life in such places has no long term: everything dies immediately.” (Manning, 2004, p. 43) While adding nitrogen to crops does increase production it has a disastrous affect on not only local environment but also worldwide ecology. This is a perfect example of how technology may prevent a collapse but also cause drastic negative effects. These negative effects will compile until we can no longer overcome them and human society will
In order to deal with these issues, there have been many modifications to our natural environment to solely improve the food growth rate. The technological advancements born during the Green Revolution greatly affected the modern industrial agriculture system and its effect on the environment. Pesticides and synthetic fertilizers use help development of a single crop to be grown in large quantities. This method of agriculture, known as monoculture, was one of the revolutionary practices created and nurtured until the rise in organic foods. Farmers were able to grow multiple crops in the same amount of land, allowing for more profit and greater annual yield. These advancements benefitted the world until it began to be overused. The abuse of the technology has lead to many negative effects on the environment, one of which occurred in Punjab, India where the government had been intensively irrigating the land. As a result, it could no longer be cultivated. The removal of crop residues from the fields, which virtually removed all nutrients from the soil, the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides created issues of water and land quality. The loss of productive land created due to waterlogged soils and salinization created a hardship on both the town and its
Industrial farming is a huge waste of natural resources. We use too much energy just to produce the food; per capita, the U.S. uses more energy for food production, processing, and distribution than Asia and Africa use for all activities combined” (145). Not only that, but the amount of water we use is ridiculous in comparison to other farms. Mason and Singer stated that “bread delivers roughly the same calorie count as hamburger beef for one-twelfth of the water usage” (237). This is not even including the loss of biodiversity and land that factory farming causes. The worst part is that, like I stated earlier, the output is not worth the input. Industrial farming is an ineffective way of feeding the population. More nutrients goes into growing and feeding the animals to our preferred mass than there are going into us, which is supposedly the whole point of eating meat, gaining nutrients that are “unavailable in plants.” Frances Lappé called this type institution a “protein factory in reverse – meaning that you
As you walk to the other end of the stage and look out into the sea of blue and gold corduroy, you realize this it! This is the moment you’ve worked toward for the last four years. You’ve stayed long hours after school working on you record book, spent grueling hours memorizing speeches, experienced the joy of winning first place at a state CDE contest, and best of all you met so many amazing people and doors were opened to opportunities you never imagined. Finally, after all of your hard work, you’re receiving your State FFA Degree! All of this from making one simple decision your freshman year of high school, signing up for the FFA. What you didn’t realize at the time was that this wonderful organization would help you build leadership skills and teach life skills that you are going to need in the coming years.
The second future envisioned scenario by Nash is that of the ‘garden scenario.’ In this situation, humans seem to have achieved their absolute potential in technological ways. Rather than living as one with the environment humans will have replaced necessary environmental processes with artificial ones, or eliminating all things unnecessary to personal survival. Diversity will have been eliminated and only wilderness will aid human civilization. This scenario could never happen because the food web of the Earth is co complex, by removing ...
Many events have been regarded as the biggest mistake in the history of mankind, however, the most unexpected mistake might be the adoption of agriculture. Today, we live completely different lives from the hunter-gatherers of the past. If mankind hadn’t begun the domestication and cultivation of plants and animals over 10,000 years ago, would the human condition be better or worse than it is now? It would be awfully hard to answer the question when compare now to 10,000 years ago. However, the answer becomes clearer when you look back at history when agriculture first came into practice. Progressivism is the idea human advancements always benefits the human condition. Although, since the introduction of agriculture, human condition has declined
618.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent are produced each year in the United States alone for agriculture (EPA). Agriculture is one source of greenhouse gasses we can’t eliminate, but we could as a species decide to eat greener. Cows are a massive producer of methane, but very few people are willing to give up or downsize their stake intake. With so much greenhouse gas produced the problem is compiled when the amount of clean water used is taken into context. “Globally we use 70% of our water sources for agriculture and irrigation, and only 10% on domestic uses.” On the same note of water conservation 783 million people don’t have access to clean water. The issue as addressed isn’t agriculture, but where we invest most of our resources in production (The Water Project). McDonalds would not have been happy if he mentioned this, but a Big Mac produces 6.8 lbs. in greenhouse gas emissions (Ganeshan,
The term, progress, is synonymous with phrases that denote moving forward, growth, and advancement. It seems unorthodox then that Ronald Wright asserts the world has fallen into a progress trap, a paradox to how progress is typically portrayed as it contradicts the conventional way life is viewed: as being a natural progression from the outdated and tried towards the new and improved. Wright posits that it is the world’s relentless creation of innovative methods that ironically contributes to the progress trap rather than to progress itself, the intended objective. Wright’s coinage of the term “progress trap” refers to the phenomenon of innovations that create new complications that are typically left without resolve which exacerbate current conditions; unwittingly then, matters would have been much better if the innovation had never been implemented. In his book, “A Short History of Progress,” he alludes to history by citing examples of past civilizations that collapsed after prospering, and ones that had longevity because they avoided the perilous progress trap. Wright recommends that societies of today should use indispensable resources, such as history, to learn and apply the reasons as to why certain societies succeeded, while also avoiding falling into the pitfalls of those that failed, the ones that experienced the progress trap. This can easily be interrelated with Godrej’s concept of “the overheated engine of human progress,” since humans for centuries have been risking environmental degradation for progress through ceaseless industrialization and manufacturing. This exchange is doomed to prevent improved progress and will lead to society’s inevitable decline since it is unquestionable that in the unforeseeable future, cl...
337). Using statistics, he illustrates how much land is used for agriculture compared with other terrestrial environments. Agriculture occupies a big portion of our environment. This “Agricultural expansion has had tremendous impacts on habitats, biodiversity, carbon storage, and soil conditions. In fact, worldwide agriculture has already cleared or converted...” (Jonathan & Navin, 2011, p. 338) large portions of various thriving ecosystems. Despite that fact productivity is not increasing and “The allocation of crops to non-food uses, including animal feed, seed, bioenergy and other industrial products, affects the amount of food available to the world” (Jonathan & Navin, 2011, p. 338). This allocation occurs more in developed countries. In developing countries the majority of crops are for human consumption. In the developing countries yield gaps occur, these gaps can be filled if the people adopt sustainable methods of producing crops. Once the gaps are filled there will be no reason to expand agriculture further into other
...is destroying persons and the environment….What I am suggesting is that it might be the only chance for the turning of human beings from a course leading to the deterioration and perhaps the end of life on this planet.” ³
Using two to three examples from different parts of the world, examine and compare the reasons why people did or did not adopt agriculture. What key forms of evidence can be used to support your account?
In my English 130 class we watched the movie Inconvenient Truth and, for the first time, I saw the growing industrialization of China. After seeing China’s growing wasteful consumption of resources, I was reminded of a discussion that took place in my Anthropology 113 class last semester. In this discussion, my professor brought to light how our production of food is just as disturbing as our consumption of it. He presented a video that showed how the industrialization of certain areas led the farmers to abandon their tradition agricultural system and replace it with mass food production. This “small” change ended up having a huge negative impact on their society. Previous to change in their farming techniques, the farming system allowed for more social interaction between the generations and gave them enough food to feed themselves with still plenty left to generate in income. After the push for mass production, this system was destroyed, leaving the town with problems they had no precedent for. These events show how a change in production of goods (especially crops) can have disastrous effects on people and their environment. For my research I set my heart on further exploring this relationship between human’s participation in agriculture and its affects on the environment. Hence, I began my research trying to figure out what it is that people are doing to leave the world with fewer agriculturally usable lands.
Along with high yielding seeds and irrigation facilities, the enthusiasm of farmers mobilized the idea of agricultural revolution. Due to the rise in use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers there were negative effects on the soil and the land such as land degradation. The production increases fostered by the green revolution are often credited with having helped to avoid widespread famine, and for feeding billions of people. There are also claims that the green revolution has decreased food security for a large number of people
The heavy use of nitrogen and potassium in fertilizers can cause it to leach out into fresh water reserves, causing eutrophication, algal growth, and the depletion of oxygen affecting the aquatic animals. (Tan and others 2003) Additionally, it is estimated that livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land use and occupies 30 per cent of the land on the planet. Due to sheer numbers, livestock produces a considerable volume of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide which contribute to climate change as well. (Suzuki 2014) The first couple of steps in food production clearly acts as a domino effect, affecting multiple aspects of our ecosystem. The increase in food production comes with a trade-off; it helps meet food demands, but also creates further issues regarding the availability of land and resources for future generations. Therefore, the implementation of sustainable land use practises is key.
Just ten years the world population not even close enough to 4 billion. But now according to several research’s there are more than 7 billion people all over the world and the number is still growing in several growing countries. Human basic needs also come with the increase of population growth. Food, cloth and shelters are the tree main basic needs of human being. in order to meet those need farming industry, clothing and construction also need to increase their production. According to the study just here the US farming contribute 20 % of the carbon emission on the environment to the nation and industrial farming contribute 12 % of the world carbon emission due to its use of pesticide, fertilizers and others products which use in the
From the beginning of this agricultural phenomena, we have been led to believe that factory farms( Also known as CAFOs-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are supremely efficient. Factory farming began in the 1920’s due to new, industrial farming techniques. Because of new discoveries and methods, crops were now cheaper and easier to produce. Because more grain was available, in turn, more animals could be fed. The factory farming method produced more food and made large corporations more money. (“Factory Farming”) While this may sound like factory farming can only benefit the population, scientists have found the opposite. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, agriculture is the chief cause of water pollution and contamination, due to the intense chemicals this industry uses. This exposes farm workers, wildlife, and citizens of the U.S. as a whole to toxic pesticides. These same chemicals degrade soil for future use, and drains our nation’s natural resources by using about 16% of all the energy used in the U.S. (Union of Concerned Scientists) Factory farming lacks sustainability, but also efficiency. Cattle require about 13 pounds of feed to produce just one pound of beef. (Rodale Institute) This fact alone, shows us that factory farming is not advantageous to our society and our