|
 Essay - july/aug 2003
Before and After
James C. Delouche
Professor Emeritus Mississippi State University
Until a few weeks ago I considered the nostalgia that is both an affliction and indulgence of aging as nothing more than remembrances of youthful ambitions, relationships and indiscretions. Then I was intellectually and emotionally engaged by a short but provocative and challenging lecture on the power of an analysis of issues and controversies, historical and current, structured in terms of BEFORE AND AFTER. The lecturer make the point that nostalgia is usually prompted by some current event or issue and is a sort of happy way of examining changes that are troubling in terms of before and after. The main deficiency with nostalgia is that the before situation is too frequently compared unfavorably with the after conditions, i.e., the present and future we envision and fear. If one is objective, however, and avoids memorializing the past and denigrating the present and future, nostalgia can lead to the wisdom associated with age because the past holds many powerful lessons, illuminating insights and time-tested solutions that can be applied to present issues, problems and challenges. Since the lecture I frequently find myself reflecting on the before and after landmarks in my life, my family, profession, field of interest and so on. I want to share highlights of a few reflections on pivotal transitions from before to after situations in our professional field of interest, viz., crop agriculture. If redundancies from previous essays are noted, please indulge an old professor enamored by change and history and in search of wisdom.
Before the invention of crop agriculture about 10,000 years ago mankind consisted of small bands of nomadic hunters and gathers. The bands were small since the average outcomes of hunting and gathering did not produce sufficient food for a large number of people. This most basic lifestyle would have continued on and on without the invention of crop husbandry because there was essentially no alternative. After the invention of crop husbandry, however, the more abundant and assured food supply provided resources for the development of a wholly new lifestyle with a myriad of possibilities we call civilization. Although there is no documentation of how people felt about the transition from the before to the after, there can be no doubt that most of the nomadic bands strongly resisted adopting crop husbandry, But crop agriculture prevailed and
spread throughout the inhabited world, populations increased, and civilization progressed propelled by many transitions from before to after conditions, some small and some giant but all significant. Then about 200 years ago there began to be widespread concern and fear that human population growth would soon exceed food supply and that a balance between the two could only be maintained through famine, war and pestilence. But, a very precarious balance between food supply and population was maintained for the next 100 years or so by human inventiveness until the balance was strongly shifted to food production with two crucial inventions: genetic science and the Haber-Bosch process for converting atmospheric nitrogen into a usable form of nitrogen fertilizer.
Before the early 1900s there was a poor understanding about how traits and features of plants were determined beyond the parental influence rather crudely expressed as "like begets like." Improvements in crop plants were achieved mostly by visual selection among the variants in the species population with little effort to increase the variability through cross breeding. After the rediscovery of G. Mendel's laws of inheritance about 1900 the powerful science of genetics began to be developed and applied to improving both crops and domesticated animals. As will be seen, progress was rather slow in the beginning but has been accelerating since then with a legacy of substantial and timely increases in food production and enormous potential for future benefits.
The critical importance of an adequate supply of usable forms of nitrogen for plant growth and reproduction had been well established in the 19th century but about 1900 there was growing apprehension that food production would soon be limited by insufficient supplies of nitrogen fertilizer. Population was increasing and crop yields were actually decreasing due to depletion of soil nitrogen in the older cultivated areas in Europe and other areas not renewed by sediments from periodic flooding. Animal manures and composts were inadequate and the Chilean deposits of geological nitrates were limited and distant. After the invention of the Haber-Bosch process for converting atmospheric nitrogen into a usable form of ammonia for fertilizer, the apprehension and fears vanished as food security was seemingly assured by an inexhaustible supply of nitrogen fertilizer and the developing science of genetics. In the case of both inventions, however, there is abundant documentation that the transitions from the before situations to the after situations were strongly and widely resisted. Darwin's "Origin of Species" was still intensely debated and opposed. Most people strongly believed that "meddling" in the "natural" order of things - man, plants, animals, nitrogenous fertilizer- would result in grave consequences if not disasters. Some of the arguments of the times are hauntingly echoed in the rhetoric attached to the before to after transitions on the issues agenda of the present time. But, the industrial revolution continued, cities grew to provide and house the labor needed by industry, and the human population continued unabated.
As mentioned above, exploitation of the science of genetics to maintain a favorable balance between food supply and population that began in the early 1900s has continued at an accelerating pace. There were several crucial before and after transitions. Before the 1930s there were mostly pure line varieties of crops; after the 1930s there were productive and efficient hybrid varieties of maize and in time for many other crops. Before the 1960s the specter of famine hovered over some of the populous areas of South Asia; after the 1960s the new efficient and productive varieties of the green revolution dramatically increased the yield of food crops and famine forecast for the 1970s was averted. Despite the dramatic increases in productivity of the hybrid and green revolution varieties they were initially resisted for reasons ranging from poor taste to the high rates of fertilizer that had to be used. Both developments prevailed, however, and hybrid varieties and the semi-dwarf, fertilizer responsive green revolution type varieties are now dominant in the developed agricultures around the world. In the same time frame another before to after transition took place despite very intense opposition that continues even to the present time. Before the 1960s there was no legal ownership of crop varieties. During
and after the 1960s plant variety protection legislation began to be enacted in the developed countries that awarded ownership rights to the creators of crop varieties. These rights have since been extended in some countries to genetic systems, traits and varieties containing the traits under patent laws. The effects of these legal actions on the scope and composition of the seed industry are so well-known that further commentary is unnecessary.
The final before and after transition I want to present is probably the most portentous of the last century, perhaps even of the last millennium. Before 1954 the laws of inheritance and the role of genes were well established but there was only speculation about the nature of genes, their chemical structure and the fundamental mechanisms of gene action. Watson and Crick's classic paper on the structure of DNA published in 1954 has led to increasingly detailed knowledge of the genetic code and, most significantly, ways to manipulate and control it. We, the world-wide public, are presently embroiled in moral, economic, scientific and political controversies over the acceptability of the after results of the transition from classical breeding to genetic engineering, specifically the types, timing, use, and economics of the genetically modified (GM) products created or derived from transgenic manipulations. While resistance to the changes and the multiple controversies underway are probably not generically different to those that have attended every before to after transition, they are much more heated, sustained and disruptive than in the past due to the ease of communications and transportation, visibility through the media, economics, politics and the affluence of partisans of both sides.
A major reason why I am so engaged by examination of current and historical issues in a before and after analytical structure is that it reaffirms my view that in the past the reasonable disposition and good judgment of humankind prevailed and that it will do so in the present transitions. Thus, I can read and reflect on the arguments of the different sides and join in those aspects with which I am comfortable with the surety that the transition will ultimately be governed by good sense, perhaps not mine or yours, but humankind's in general, as has always been the case. I recommend before and after analysis for all sorts of issues ranging from the very weighty such as globalization of economies to the most personal and perplexing such as surviving in a ubiquitous environment of wireless phones.
|
|
............
|
