Thinking Situationally

I think it is very difficult to identify a single, precise cause of conflict, or to apply one theory to environmental events or resource shortage.  We have spent time discussing and comparing theories and how they can be applied to conflict or shortages and not everyone can agree on which theory can be best applied to the situation or, for example, what factor is the reason for conflict- is it natural resources or some outside factor?  The purpose of this post is to discuss how many environmental conflicts, shortages or other events can be very situational and not related to one blanket cause.  I know that sounds like such an obvious statement, but I wanted to discuss just how many “if’s,” “or’s,” or “yet’s” exist.  I consider myself to be a very situational and objective thinker, so often, when attempting to choose a theory to agree with, for example, I usually can’t- my answer is “it depends.”

This was most definitely the response I had when discussing the idea that natural resources are the cause and source of all conflict.  While conflict certainly breaks out because of a fight for land or some other resource like oil or diamonds, I don’t think that is the sole reason.  We obviously discussed one of the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 to be the threat of large amounts oil in the hands of a tyrant.  While this may be true, I do not believe it was the sole or determining factor. Suddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism and the United States was currently in a very anti-terrorism state of mind relative to before 9/11.  So, when we discuss the theory that all conflict is caused by natural resources, this example is not one that I think solely rested on the threat of losing natural resources.  Ross also argues that natural resources are never the only source of conflict.  

We’ve also discussed whether or not we believe in the resource curse.  Ross also opines that “for every resource-rich country that has suffered from violent conflict, two or three have avoided it.” I think that this is a true statement. When looking at the map in class of the oil-rich countries, Canada was just as bright red as the entire Middle East and Canada is traditionally a country that is conflict-free.  I think it provides an example of a nation that may not necessarily suffer from the resource curse.  The resources curse may have more to do with HOW a country uses the resources they have rather than whether they have it or not.  

Yergin also provides a really interesting narrative about the beginning of the extensive use of oil and explains what implications the quest for oil has on a number of different nations.  He explains how much of an economic tool oil can be and that it can provide vast amounts of wealth to individuals and nations.  The United States is surely an example of a country that has benefitted from the existence and use of oil.  However, he also provides us with the information that the United States, although one of the largest producers of oil, must import a generous amount of the oil it uses.  Another example he provides is Mexico, who flourished through oil only to have it undermine their economy.

I am certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t be comparing and contrasting theories or choosing one that we agree with. But I think, in order to properly address conflict and potentially, environmental catastrophe or resources shortages, we have to look at things situationally.  I think its important to be able to apply both sides of a theory to an event or situation in the way that best fits.

What is Environmental Violence?

          In everyday life it is easy to recognize violence.  We see a fist fight break out, hear about a shooting on the news, or watch footage of combat abroad and automatically identify those situations as examples of violence.  But how do we define violence as it applies to environmental degradation, and not direct human to human physical harm?  Can environmental degradation be used as a weapon, like a firearm can, of violence against a person or group of people--or is violence the wrong term to apply to environmental disasters that cause harm?  I'm arguing that environmental degradation can be defined as violence when it causes direct harm to a person or group of individuals, and I am using three cases as examples of environmental violence in both the developed and developing worlds: the Bhopal disaster in India, Love Canal in upstate New York, and the Three Gorges Dam in China.
          During the "green revolution" in the 1960s and 70s pesticides were hailed as a global solution to increase agricultural production and end world hunger.  The Indian government jumped on this opportunity, creating policies to encourage Western companies to build large pesticide-producing plants in India.  Over a decade later in the 1980s, demand for pesticides had decreased greatly and one of these American-owned pesticide plants in Bhopal, India was set to shut down due to low operations, but without any potential buyers the plant continued to operate through 1984.  The local government in Bhopal knew that the plant failed to meet several industrial and safety regulations, but could not afford to enforce those regulations and instead put the burden of compliance into the factory operators' hands--so it continued to operate unsafely.  Late at night on December 2, 1984 a gas known as methyl isocyanate (MIC) began leaking from the factory as several safety measures failed to work and thousands of Bhopalians slept.  Exposure to this gas resulted in the death of over 8,000 people with more than 200,000 experiencing injuries, birth defects, and other complications related to MIC exposure.  With stricter enforcement and compliance with health and safety regulations, this disaster could have easily been avoided--but because of carelessness and greed thousands of people in Bhopal, India went to sleep on December 2, 1984 never to wake up again.  The eery details of this event, to me, surely can be defined as violence.
          Love Canal was another example of environmental irresponsibility leading to violence against an innocent population, but this one occurred right here in the United States.  At the beginning of the 20th century a man named William T. Love sought to dig a canal connecting the upper and lower Niagara rivers in upstate New York, with the hope of cheap power generation.  By 1910 the canal proved too expensive and digging was halted, leaving only a large ditch.  In 1920 this ditch was turned into a chemical dumpsite, before toxic chemical disposal was strongly regulated.  A few decades later, in 1953, a chemical company who owned the land where the canal resided covered it with earth and sold it for one dollar to the city, who proceeded to built countless homes and schools overtop of Love Canal.  In 1978, after a year of particularly heavy rains, the toxic waste began leaching up from the ground.  In following years disturbingly high levels of birth defects and cancer rates were observed in this area.  As a result of the realization that the toxic chemicals were responsible, many families were compensated and Super Fund was created in the United States.  Regardless, the high incidence of birth defects and cancer that continue to plague past residents of Love Canal and could have easily been avoided clearly define this issue as a violent environmental disaster in the United States.
          While my first two examples were of environmental incidents which directly caused the death, disease, or deformation of individuals; the displacement of large numbers of people can also be considered violent because of the harm it causes.  The Three Gorges Dam in China is the world's largest dam and was built as a potential solution to provide large amounts of energy to growing populations in China.  Since being built in 2006 the dam has created a lot more problems than energy.  It's construction and operations submerged 13 cities, 140 towns, and 1,350 villages, resulting in the displacement of over 1.4 million people--most without adequate compensation.  According to a recent report more than 100,000 more people may be displaced due to landslides and bank collapses caused by the dam.  I would not always consider the displacement of people for projects such as this environmental violence, although I would consider them unethical; but, the large scale displacement of the Three Gorges Dam and the huge number of towns and villages it left submerged, combined with disastrous effects of landslides and bank collapses that are leaving even more people without homes, combine to classify the dam as a violent environmental alteration.
          In class we've debated about the definition of "violence" as it applies to environmental degradation, and if the term can even be applied to it at all.  While I concede that there are several examples of environmental degradation that, while terrible, can not exactly be considered "violent"; I think the three examples discussed in this blog demonstrate that there are instances where environmental degradation has violent results.  The death and harm of innocent individuals, as well as moving millions from their homes without fair compensation, paint as much of a picture of violence for me as seeing war footage on the news or a fight between individuals.

Relying On Mega Corporations

While reading Windup Girl, AgriGen brought me to consider examples of corporations and industries that are large market and political actors. I thought about monopolies or near monopolies that exist in the United States, and realized their influence over our government and economies is just as real. Monopolies have their obvious issues like price setting and quantity control, but they also act in ways that cripple economies and governments.

            In a perfectly competitive market, if one seller shuts down, goes bankrupt, or leaves the market for whatever reason, other sellers make up for the production. But when a seller has too much power, its collapse causes a tidal wave that cripples the buyers. With GMOs, agribusinesses get entire farming markets in their pocket by creating higher yield seeds that need to be purchased annually. The kicker is that the designers of the seeds have a monopoly on the product because their patents last longer than the seeds are produced: the company designs new seeds before other companies can use them. This means that when Monsanto comes out with a new genetically modified cottonseed, farmers need to buy it to stay competitive, and Monsanto is essentially the only store selling it.

            It is easy to imagine the world of AgriGen and PurCal becoming a reality. Certain agricultural products in the United States are produced by a majority of GM seeds, such as cotton, corn, and soy. Imagine that a large producer of GM corn hits a speed bump, maybe it goes down like Enron, or is responsible for a disaster like BP and Haliburton. Then all of a sudden farmers cannot get their GM corn seeds because the floundering Monsanto either went bankrupt or had to downsize or could not produce the seed this year for whatever reason. But there is already an established reliance on the corn. So the farmers can grow unmodified corn, but as a result the plants yield much less product. What happens next? One of the most relied on crops in the world is absent from grocery stores. Pigs and cows go unfed and now there is less red meat. Staples like tortillas, and comfort foods like popcorn and chips are not available, because what little corn that is produced is fed to the pigs and cows so Americans can have there beef jerky and pork rinds. Probably the most important side effect is the shortage of whiskey, arguably in some respects the backbone of society. Quite frankly, I fear the immense effect orchestrated disasters could have coming from the many monopolies of firms and industries that exist in many places.

            This scenario could come from electricity providers, which typically have an outright monopoly in a region. Pepco could flip a switch and make the capital of the free world go dark. Water providers, trash collectors, even airport operators in some places have local monopolies. Bacigalupi presents an extreme case, as I am rather sure Monsanto does not have hit men, but his concerns are real. What I got most out of Windup Girl is the possible outcome of our society relying on a few mega corporations and giving them enough leverage that the consequences from there actions hit everywhere. Maybe the result is that like Anderson, people have difficulty finding a good piece of fruit. Personally, I am more concerned over the stability of the production of beef jerky, pork rinds, and whiskey.

A World Before Bacigalupi's

“As the global community sank deeper into a new age of post-development, the last remaining tribes native to the jungles of the Amazon found themselves forced to face the harsh realities that those living in the outside world had already become accustomed to.  Over the course of the twenty-first century, the rainforest had been rapidly hacked away until it was nothing more than scattered patches of woodland, some completely out of sight from one another.  The once mighty Amazon River now barely reached the Atlantic, as much of it had been diverted to quench the thirst of cities hundreds of miles away.  Ironically enough, many of those rich enough to afford convenient access to safe, clean drinking water had come to envy these tribes, despite the fact they could not drink from the water source that their ancestors had relied on for centuries without the fear of contracting illness or disease.  At least they could still experience what was left of the natural world.  Trees had seemingly become a lost aspect of towns and cities, and were now simply thought of as a crop, harvested to meet the growing demands of an overpopulated world.  While the months were quickly approaching the beginning of a new century, the year 2200 seemed to bring nothing worth celebrating.”

Although this mini future scenario seems extremely bleak, I really do not feel this pessimistic about the future, especially in terms of how environmental issues might be dealt with down the road.  However, I felt that it could potentially provide a possible description of how the world might have been before the one that Bacigalupi imagines in The Windup Girl.  While I will admit that I was unable to reach the end of the novel by the time I started writing this blog post, while reading it I could not help but feel that the theme of the story was quite pessimistic, and offered a pretty ominous outlook of what the world will become.  Many of the fears that we have in concern for environmental issues today seemed to become a reality in the book, and in some cases seemed to exceed them.  Sea level rise had reached the point where coastal cities required flood gates, GMOs had gotten way out of hand, and resources that are heavily relied on today had been completely depleted.

These are all obviously valid concerns, and arguably possible scenarios of the future, but in coming across them throughout the story, I could not help but question whether any effort had been made to stop these issues from occurring before Bacigalupi’s world.  Although efforts of environmental conservation are made apparent in the present tense of the novel, is it possible that previous generations had simply given up in their efforts to combat these problems?  This question may possibly deal with pessimistic views held by society in concern for pursuing environmental efforts.  It may also center on the argument that people are not willing to work on solving issues that do not have immediate impacts, and do not start until it is too late.  While I feel that it definitely important to maintain a level of caution in regard to what the future might hold, I also believe that optimism will be a valuable tool in helping to combat environmental issues, and ultimately get things done. 

Calorie Companies versus Water Privatization

            When considering all the mounting environmental and resource availability problems our modern society is facing, many people turn to advances in technology and neo-liberalisation as potential solutions.  In Paolo Bacigalupi’s novel The Windup Girl, powerful agro-businesses, known as “calorie companies”, specializing in genetically modified organisms hold almost absolute economic and political control in a future society. One relationship I noticed between Bacigalupi’s world and our world is between the control of calorie companies in the future world and the potential for water privatization today.  Both are examples of the so-called “solutions” where industry takes over control of a necessary resource, with the expectation that pressures of supply and demand coupled with technological advances can solve societal problems better than government regulation.  I’m arguing that both Bacigalupi’s novel and modern cases of water privatization are examples of this theory going awry.  Although water privatization can benefit the public and help create water security, when implemented incorrectly it can lead to ramifications similar to the result of calorie company control in The Windup Girl.

            Water privatization involves transferring the control of water operations and distribution from the public sphere into private hands, and is a very controversial topic.  Those who advocate for privatization argue that the private sector, operating on the principles of supply and demand, would be much more efficient in setting prices, updating infrastructure and technology, and distributing water than the government.  Those opposed argue that water is a fundamental human right, and should be controlled by the public sector to avoid problems caused by high prices or poor water quality. 

Today food is, of course, controlled by the private sector and sold in markets operating on the principles of supply and demand—but it is regulated by the government and not nearly as monopolized as it is in The Windup Girl.   The monopoly of food resources that the calorie companies hold in futuristic Thailand allows them to engage in bio-warfare and create a market for their products because they control such an important resource.  Similarly, businesses that exercise a monopoly over water resources have the option to manipulate the resource to their benefit, because water is an even more essential human need than food.  I am not arguing that water privatization leads to bio-warfare, but it can often lead to pricing out of the poorer class, health problems, and conflict.

            An example of this occurred in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 1998. The Cochabamba government was corrupt and inefficient and therefore unable to provide sufficient water to their citizens. At that time the World Bank was spending a lot of money to promote neo-liberalism in developing countries with transitioning governments, like Bolivia.  The World Bank lent them money on the condition that they privatize their water system.  Cochabamba entered into a 40-year contract with a private firm, giving them total control and ownership over their water system, including the water itself.  Prices of water skyrocketed, traditional water practices were banned, and the water quality actually decreased.  After just two years, public protests and civil unrest led the government to break the contract and take back control of the water system.

            Like in Cochabamba and Bacigalupi’s futuristic Thailand, when companies gain absolute power over a resource that is essential to life, such as water or calories, there is a strong possibility for corruption and greed.  Many people view technological advances and neo-liberalism as keys to solve and adapt to our growing environmental problems, The Windup Girl warns against this growing reliance.  As we discusses in class, human nature tends to be “reactive” as opposed to “proactive” and instead of dealing with issues of climate change and water scarcity head-on favors taking the easy way out and trying to adapt using technology and economic control.  I believe that in order to be proactive we should focus fixing on the systematic flaws of our lifestyles to try to combat the problem, as opposed to relying corporations and technology to combat them for us.

Drawing comparisons between the world in The Windup Girl and today

When I was reading The Windup Girl, I was obviously thinking about how different the world the characters were living in was compared to the one we live in now. While there were clear and obvious differences, I was also able draw some comparisons between elements of the story and things that exist today.  A lot of the things I picked up on are related to health or medicine because those are the classes I spend most of my time in, but I think they are still applicable. 

The first similarity I noticed was the presence of GMOs.  Obviously, the extent to which they are used is very different, but I wondered if the future of our GMO use will be very similar to that of their use in The Windup Girl.  Its hard for me to imagine that the use of GMOs would become that seemingly out of control and industrialized, but when compared to the differences between food production now and 100 years ago, maybe large-scale changes (GMOs now to GMOs in the book) are possible.  On an even larger scale, generipping seems to serve as an extreme form of genetically modifying foods, and even animals and humans.  While I can't really come up with any strong comparisons between generipping and science and technology today, except perhaps, cloning and stem cell research, for the sake of them not being 'natural,' the idea of genetically modifying animals and humans doesn't seem so alien. We already have gene therapy, and while I think creating entire genetically modified humans is extreme, imagine if we could genetically modify a liver or pancreas to be resistant to the cell mutations that cause cancer.  I think the prejudice that existed towards Emiko was awful and that's just one reason why we can't have totally genetically-modified humans walking around in this day and age.

I also noticed that the consistent use of GMOs in The Windup Girl was to combat the threat of diseased food.  With every resistant disease contaminating a batch of fruit, new, disease-resistant fruits are created.  This reminded me a lot of how, today, we are constantly dealing with the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  I've obviously read a lot about this in public health classes so I don't know if anyone else thought about it, but they have similar characteristics.  Antibiotics such as Penicillin are given in massive doses now, compared to the doses that were needed to treat an infection around the time Penicillin was created around World War I.  There are also strains of staph that run rampant in hospitals and other health care facilities that have begun to show resistance to the health industry's most potent and expensive antibiotics.  A major issue with antibiotic resistance is that the bacteria become resistant too soon after the drug is released and it can take ten years and billions of dollars to develop a new drug.  This isn't enough time to combat the resistance.  I felt a similar sense of urgency in The Windup Girl, with companies continuously trying to stay on top of the latest resistant bug and attempting to avoid another break out.  I also thought it was interesting how the idea of a breakout of blister rust or cibiscosis could totally shut down a community or threaten the livelihood.  The only comparison I can make between the fear of outbreaks in The Windup Girl and today, is possibly the SARS outbreak between 2002 and 2003.  The United States didn't see much of the effect of the outbreak, but Canada and many countries in Asia did.  SARS was so scary because it was sneaky and quick, and no scientist or public health official had ever seen it before- it was totally new.  I don't think we live in fear of outbreaks the way that individuals did in The Windup Girl, but I think there have been times that we have experienced that tension.

The Rise of GMOs in Tomorrow's World

My first thought when reading “The Wind Up Girl” was about our class discussion and my personal knowledge on the rise of GMOs in today’s society. In the novel, essentially all foods and even living things such as animals and people are genetically manipulated. The novel arguably is the manifestation of most or all of the social fears surrounding the increase of genetically modified products within the food system.

            One major issue is obviously health complications. In the book their genetically modified organisms created massive effects with cibiscosis that most characters seemed to fear constantly and blister rust. This not only created personal health implications but also social fear and distrust as individuals were afraid to catch the disease and it would create conflict within society.

My main argument is a lack of information on the health effects from GMOs. I recently read that the ratio of children born with autism has risen from 1 in 88 births to 1 in 68 in the United States from 2012, just two years ago. I’m not going to be so bold to say there is a direct correlation between the rise in autism and the use of GMOs, but I think it is a feasible idea that the health effects of GMOs have not be sufficiently studied and could be involved in the extreme rise of many new health problems we’re seeing today. 

GMO diets have been linked to infertility issues, damaged organs, gastrointestinal and immune system failure, and other problems. This has been extremely under researched and is not common knowledge in society. Additionally, many are unaware of just how frequently we consume GMO products every day. Since more than 90 percent of our corn and soy products are created with GM seeds and these products are in virtually all processed foods, GM products are in a great percentage of food availability in one’s local food market and all go unlabeled.

As is seen in the novel, the introduction of genetic modification and chemicals into the food production system has had a huge effect on the genetic makeup of agriculture. The newest phenomenon has been Colony Collapse Disorder, where entire bee colonies are disappearing because of the use of pesticides. If the number of bees continues to dwindle, many common fruits and vegetables will no longer be pollinated and therefore will disappear just like the ngaw from “The Wind Up Girl”.

Another correlation between the novel and today’s fears is the unknown side effects of manipulated genes and its effect on the natural environment.  In the novel, the megadonts or genetically modified elephants caused many issues, for example the attack in the factory. Emiko was a genetically modified human who was created with a genetic malfunction of becoming too hot in warmer climates. The unpredictable nature of manipulating genetic material can lead to more future problems with causing unforeseen health effects or cause animals or plants to go extinct.

Reading this novel make me thinking about what is to come for our future world. As we talked about in class, the idea of “If we can do it, we should” directs a lot of our endeavors in society, including the rise of GMOs. Despite the arguments for creating enough food for the many more mouths there are to feed, I worry about what our meddling with the natural food system could eventually do to our health and the environment. I say we need to refocus our endeavors to keep the long term effects in mind and make sure we’re keeping ourselves and the ones after us safe.