In the second chapter and third chapters of Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Polan discusses the history of the production of corn. In supermarkets today, almost everything comes either directly or indirectly from corn. Polan visits a farm in Iowa and talks with George Naylor, a corn farmer. Over the years there has been and increase in technology enabling more corn to be produced per acre. With a new type of seed, corn can now be planted closer together. Polan points out that “hybrids can tolerate the corn equivalent of city life” (37). As corn production increased, the production of other plants and animals on many farms decreased. The number of people also decreased, because new technology allowed fewer people to produce more corn. In addition to new seeds, the tractor revolutionized production. Another key factor was chemical fertilizer, which put nitrogen into the soil, enabling farmers to plant corn year after year instead of rotating crops. The invention of this fertilizer means that now earth can support more life. Farming has basically become turning fossil fuel to food, which although seemed economically smart at first, is most definitely ecologically inefficient. Although technology has allowed production to increase, many problems have accompanied this development. It now costs more to produce corn than it is worth, but it is still produced. Naylor points out that with such low prices farmers can give up or produce more, but as more is produced, prices drop further. The government pays if the price drops too far, making it possible to always have high production and low cost. In corn production, the focus has shifted from quality to quantity.
Although I knew that corn was key to the production of so many different things, I was unaware of the extent. I was completely unaware of how harmful the current production of corn is to the environment and how terrible things are for corn farmers. There seems to be so much waste and not nearly enough profit. It would make sense to think that producing less corn would solve the problems in the corn industry, yet given how little corn farmers earn, this is not a possibility. They all produce more, because they see it as their only chance of survival. Is there anything the government can do to help farmers and prevent constant overproduction?
Overall, have improvements in technology been beneficial or harmful?
Emma, I really liked the points you brought up in your blog. I think you are right that less corn needs to be produced, but at the moment it is not economically feasible for farmers. I hope the government will do something to correct this problem but because the problem is so huge, I think it will take many years to correct.
ReplyDeleteI like your question about if technologies have ultimately been beneficial or harmful. There are so many outcomes from so many different technological advances that this question is very hard to answer. For example, lets take GMOs. More specifically, the b.t corn series. The b.t. corn is genetically modified to make it pest resistant. This might sound fantastic that we no longer need pesticides but is this the whole story? How do we know the long term effects of making bt corn? Is it healthy for humans to consume in the long term? Will it disrupt the natural course of evolution in the long term?
ReplyDeleteYou misspelled Michael Pollan.
ReplyDelete