Stuart Reichler,
Instructor
University of Texas at Austin
I found Dr. Trewavas' article very well informed and thought provoking. While I agree with his primary assertions, I think that he is being short-sighted in his proposed solution to feeding the growing population.
If the population continues to grow along with our use of resources, technology will eventually fail to mantain acceptable levels of food production. As stated in the article, as countries become more wealthy, their use of resources increases. A reliance on techological solutions to resolve future shortages does not take into effect that moving towards a more technological society will increase overall uses of resources. I question whether we can expect that crop yields will increase sufficiently to support our growing needs. There is no mention in Dr. Trewavas' article regarding estimations of how much more efficient we can make agriculture. While 42% of crops are lost to insect damage or fungal infection, how much can technology reduce this number? While we have made great increases in agricultural efficiency over the last 100 years, can technology continue to provide increases at the same or greater rates?
Furthermore, while technology has delivered many advances that have improved our quality of life, it has also brought with it many problems. Dr. Trewavas uses the example of how modern London would be overrun with horse excrement were it not for the invention of the internal combustion engine. Modern London and other large cities are now overrun with pollution created by those very same internal combustion engines. A further example would be nuclear power. It is an efficient power source, until you take into account that the waste products are highly toxic and will not degrade for many generations. For each technological advancement, there is a new and sometimes unforseen problem that is created.
Lastly, while human use and control of the environment have been hallmarks of our existence, our ability to change the environment has grown enormously over the past centuries. Therefore it behooves us to use caution in any new endeavor that has the possibility to irreversably alter natural porcesses. The discovery and implementation of new technology is driven by companies operating solely with the motivation to maximize profits. There is no reason not to believe that increased industrialization of agriculture will rely on corporations for its implementation. There is little evidence that these entities feel any responsibility to monitor or take precautions when introducing new technologies. So to rely on technology to produce food for the human population is to rely on corporations that have shown little care to more than motives of profit.
As quite clearly stated in Dr. Tewavas' article, the problems facing humanity are dire. Scientists must work to help solve these problems. But a further reliance on technology can not resolve these problems without introducing new problems. This will only continue the cycle of human ingenuity keeping ahead of the next impending disaster. I applaud Dr. Trewavas for offering concrete solutions to the concrete problems of future food production, but I am disappointed in his blind faith in technology as a solution to these problems. Additionally, by asserting that we can indeed increase food production without the loss of wilderness reduces the perception of the seriousness of unchecked population growth. There is no question that the current technological advances in crop production will be beneficial, but there is also no question that we have embarked on a rapid and fairly unchecked change in the way we grow food. Plant biologists have a responsibility to be involved in shaping the future uses of plant biotechnology, but we should not limit ourselves to technological solutions.