> "if human activity continues to dominate nature on 95% of the terrestial landscape,
> the new "steady state" of species will contain about 5% of today's species".
>..."in perhaps 20 years starting in the early 1990s, the
> corporate genome, as it were, will go through its own evolutionary process,
> with the number of "species" shrinking at least 95% and the size/power of
> companies going up several-fold. This profound change will undoubtedly
> trigger equally major changes in the behavior and impacts of corporations;
> these must be factored in by ecologists, biologists, politicians, as they
> look ahead".
> "in Great Britain ... most people no longer believe that government or public
> institutions can stand up to corporations/special interests when scientific
> uncertainty and messy, complex questions get in the way of new (or existing)
> markets and profits."
Chuck knows! (much better than your average knower).
I think - that's is going to take more than "ecologists, biologists, politicians". The gravest fact (it seems to me) is that consumers, voters, in short - people (except that people have become primarily consumers within the context of this phenomena), have already been locked out of a lot of alternatives and have little basis upon which to make (and make felt) an informed choice (as is being done in England).
What must be done is going to have to come from people like YOU (dear readers), because no one else has been able to develop (or hang on to) the bit of insight that should be enough to provide a bit of a head start in terms of knowing what is real and what is important. With FOOD, the difference CAN be felt and will be paid for by those that have it to give.
I may have already departed from the strictly biodiversity angle - however, the same criteria and choices that are limiting biodiversity are also affecting what we could call QUALITY, which (I insist) has a biological foundation, where food is concerned. The problem is then, to make better (in terms of diversity and biologically based quality), food available, and in such a way that it is not restricted to an elite group.
It is for that reason that I have decided to induce flowering in pineapples - in as biologically as possible a way.
Nothing additional follows.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 22/04/99 at 8:39 AM Charles Benbrook wrote:
>The latest issue of Science (April 9, 1999, Vol. 284) has a couple
>of astounding articles. "Heeding the Warning in Biodivrsity's basic Law"
>summarizes a technical report also in the issue, and ends by pointing out
>that the latest data/models suggest that if human activity continues to
>dominate nature on 95% of the terrestial landscape, the new "steady state"
>of species will contain about 5% of today's species. Based on this
>prediction, we are just rounding first base in our collective longer-run
>impact on biodiversity. Great thought to begin the day with.
>
> The "Science Compass" piece is also good -- it revisits Hardin's
>"Tradegy of the Commons" and makes the case for institutional diversity in
>dealing with sustainability challenges involving common property resources.
>Interesting perspectives offered on the failure of western solutions in
>Southeast Asian irrigated farming regions. It misses (at least does not
>discuss) two major changes governing the impact of people on the planet and
>steps to promote sustainability -- the volume of trade/movement of capital,
>resources, goods and the evolution of transnational corporations that are
>more powerful than most national governments and certainly dance to the beat
>of a different drummer when it comes to impacts on the commons and
>who/what/how controls their behavior.
> The article points out that people, communities, governments often
>find ways to solve common property problems that meet their needs and work
>sustainably. But in perhaps 20 years starting in the early 1990s, the
>corporate genome, as it were, will go through its own evolutionary process,
>with the number of "species" shrinking at least 95% and the size/power of
>companies going up several-fold. This profound change will undoubtedly
>trigger equally major changes in the behavior and impacts of corporations;
>these must be factored in by ecologists, biologicts, politicians, as they
>look ahead.
>
> It appears we are heading for a period when there is a fundamental
>mismatch between what institutions can accomplish -- public and private --
>and the actions and profit needs of transnationals. Perhaps GMO issues
>resonant so deeply with the public in Great Britain because most people no
>longer believe that government or public institutions can stand up to
>corporations/special interests when scientific uncertainty and messy,
>complex questions get in the way of new (or existing) markets and profits.
>
> chuck
>
>
>
>Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
>Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
>5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
>Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail