 |
| Spruce Winter |
 |
| Sunset, December 8, 2012 |
“Backed by $50 million in public and private funds, a new
research institute at the University of Saskatchewan will try to find new ways
to feed the world.” (Saskatoon StarPhoenix, December 11, 2012)
It’s
unclear in the article quoted above what is visualized by “new ways,” but
inasmuch as the bulk of the $50 million is coming from Potash Corp, I’m
guessing that it has something to do with increasing the amount of food an acre
of arable land can produce.
The taxpayers of Saskatchewan are
chipping in a mere $15.00 per person.
That a growing population
requires a growing food supply is obvious; whether or not the earth’s capacity
to keep pace with the present rate of increase is not as clear. “According to a
United Nations report, world demand for food will increase 70 per cent by 2050,
thanks to an estimated global population of nine billion people.” (ibid) The
newly-minted Global Institute for Food
Security at the University of Saskatchewan will bring together all
disciplines related remotely to food production under one umbrella to research
possible solutions.
In cattle country, the phenomenon
of too many feeders on too few acres is called “over-grazing.” The feeders in our
case (the human population) are dependent on earth’s ability to produce in
proportion to growing demand. Meanwhile, there’s ample evidence that we have
seriously “over-grazed” our oceans, for instance, and unless a way can be found
to revive, increase and sustain fish stocks, one source of food, at least, is
in decline when growth is desired.
Growth mentality does strange
things to our heads. In Canada at this time, public rhetoric is almost
exclusively about economic growth, about more, more, and always more. In Saskatchewan,
the propaganda is currently about increasing population, burgeoning production
and growing GDP. These are the signals of success and well-being into which we
so easily buy. Ask any mathematician; a geometric progression is bound to peak
sooner rather than later unless the growth space (the feeding acres, in this case)
is infinite.
Wild animals that overpopulate an
area end up starving. A good rancher knows that grazing must be controlled,
knows how to match population to resources and acts on this knowledge.
If the Global
Institute for Food Security helps us to be good ranchers, it will be worth
the $30.00 my household is contributing, but since it’s funded primarily by a
fertilizer corporation and secondarily by a growth-oriented government, I have
serious doubts about its achieving anything more than postponing the inevitable
awakening by a few minutes.
$15.00 per person, that is a lot of my beer money
ReplyDeleteIt seems it is human to be as progressive as possible, given what resources are available, be those education, economic, natural resources, etc. I find it difficult to critique any industry which I rely on to support my excessive lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteI've often said when folks pass judgement on eg. banana producers. They don't just decide to go burn more forest for fun. Mrs. Jones goes to the grocery store, and complains about the price of bananas, the grocer tells his supplier about the complaints, and so it goes up the chain. The only way for the producer to get the price down is to burn more forest. So it's Mrs. Jones' fault ( not the Mrs. Jones you know, a different one!).
Thanks for your comments, A. Nony Mouse. I'm a believer in the effectiveness of boycotts; if demand drives the whole system, that's a tool that's available to anyone.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the relationship between Mrs. Jones (not the one either of us knows) and forest burning. It's hard for me to believe that Dole increases production in order to bring the price down--motives are usually driven by corporate profit.