Today’s news is tomorrow’s history. I’m fascinated by both subjects, and when I was in college, I took degrees in journalism and history. I don’t know why it isn’t required of all journalism students. In the last ten years we’ve seen the development of instant history. No sooner does an event hit the newspapers than it is being pawed, pored over and dissected by pundits and professors.
Instant history, however, is not the same as real history. The recent impeachment trial was a godsend for instant historians, but real historians a hundred years hence will find it relatively insignificant, like the impeachment of 1868.
As the first interviews with Monica Lewinsky enter the realm of instant history, real history is being made in agricultural fields around the world. Global agriculture is in the midst of a genetic-engineering revolution and while instant historians seem oblivious to it, real historians will be fascinated.
Never in history has agriculture changed so rapidly. In 1995, no commercially-grown soybeans in the U.S. were genetically altered. In 2000, 99 percent of commercially-grown U.S. soybeans – 60 million acres – will be genetically-altered. The other one percent will be grown by organic farmers. Whether you think genetic engineering is a good idea or a bad idea, this is a significant development. I think it’s a bad idea, which is not to say I’m categorically opposed to all genetic engineering. Crossbreeding different species of corn to produce sweet corn is a simple form of genetic engineering of which I wholeheartedly approve. To get sweet corn a farmer breeds corn with corn in certain ways, to enhance certain features. The genetic engineering which is the source of our current agricultural revolution is more complex and much more dangerous. Now, instead of breeding corn with corn, we can breed corn with tomatoes, corn with trout or corn with basset hounds.
The soybeans I mentioned have been genetically altered by the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. The public relations people from Monsanto claim this type of genetic manipulation is necessary if we are going to feed all the people on earth today, not to mention those born in the near future. That’s good PR and it will play well in the instant history market, which thrives on PR. Real history is immune to PR and real history will show Monsanto’s genetically-altered plants will not feed a hungry world, they will only make it hungrier.
For Monsanto’s genetically-altered crops to thrive, they need high-quality soil, something conspicuously absent in developing countries. To flourish, Roundup-resistant soybeans call for large, expensive doses of the pesticide Roundup. The pesticide, in turn, requires expensive machinery to apply it. Monsanto’s genetically-altered soybeans will work on first-world industrial farms, not third-world subsistence farms. And even on American farms, the genetically-altered crop yields ten percent fewer beans than traditional soybean varieties.
Genetic engineering is bad news for the first world, too. Roundup-resistant soybeans are going to be sprayed with more pesticides than ever before, which means more poisoned farmworkers, more poisoned groundwater and more poison residue on the soybeans themselves. In fact, once genetically-altered, Roundup-resistant soybeans are brought to market, they have three times as much pesticide residue as is safe for human consumption. That is, of course, until the regulatory lapdogs at the Environmental Protection Agency altered their standards to allow Monsanto’s tainted crops onto out plates.
When I think about the difference between instant history and real history, I wonder how real historians will refer to our age. I don’t think it will be complimentary.
Real History
Today’s news is tomorrow’s history. I’m fascinated by both subjects, and when I was in college, I took degrees in journalism and history. I don’t know why it isn’t required of all journalism students. In the last ten years we’ve seen the development of instant history. No sooner does an event hit the newspapers than it is being pawed, pored over and dissected by pundits and professors.
Instant history, however, is not the same as real history. The recent impeachment trial was a godsend for instant historians, but real historians a hundred years hence will find it relatively insignificant, like the impeachment of 1868.
As the first interviews with Monica Lewinsky enter the realm of instant history, real history is being made in agricultural fields around the world. Global agriculture is in the midst of a genetic-engineering revolution and while instant historians seem oblivious to it, real historians will be fascinated.
Never in history has agriculture changed so rapidly. In 1995, no commercially-grown soybeans in the U.S. were genetically altered. In 2000, 99 percent of commercially-grown U.S. soybeans – 60 million acres – will be genetically-altered. The other one percent will be grown by organic farmers. Whether you think genetic engineering is a good idea or a bad idea, this is a significant development. I think it’s a bad idea, which is not to say I’m categorically opposed to all genetic engineering. Crossbreeding different species of corn to produce sweet corn is a simple form of genetic engineering of which I wholeheartedly approve. To get sweet corn a farmer breeds corn with corn in certain ways, to enhance certain features. The genetic engineering which is the source of our current agricultural revolution is more complex and much more dangerous. Now, instead of breeding corn with corn, we can breed corn with tomatoes, corn with trout or corn with basset hounds.
The soybeans I mentioned have been genetically altered by the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. The public relations people from Monsanto claim this type of genetic manipulation is necessary if we are going to feed all the people on earth today, not to mention those born in the near future. That’s good PR and it will play well in the instant history market, which thrives on PR. Real history is immune to PR and real history will show Monsanto’s genetically-altered plants will not feed a hungry world, they will only make it hungrier.
For Monsanto’s genetically-altered crops to thrive, they need high-quality soil, something conspicuously absent in developing countries. To flourish, Roundup-resistant soybeans call for large, expensive doses of the pesticide Roundup. The pesticide, in turn, requires expensive machinery to apply it. Monsanto’s genetically-altered soybeans will work on first-world industrial farms, not third-world subsistence farms. And even on American farms, the genetically-altered crop yields ten percent fewer beans than traditional soybean varieties.
Genetic engineering is bad news for the first world, too. Roundup-resistant soybeans are going to be sprayed with more pesticides than ever before, which means more poisoned farmworkers, more poisoned groundwater and more poison residue on the soybeans themselves. In fact, once genetically-altered, Roundup-resistant soybeans are brought to market, they have three times as much pesticide residue as is safe for human consumption. That is, of course, until the regulatory lapdogs at the Environmental Protection Agency altered their standards to allow Monsanto’s tainted crops onto out plates.
When I think about the difference between instant history and real history, I wonder how real historians will refer to our age. I don’t think it will be complimentary.