| Poisoning our world |
| Written by David Eagle |
| Saturday, 17 July 2010 07:31 |
|
The issue of pest control is a complicated one. What is a pest? Is not the human race the biggest pest of them all by the very same definition? The problem New Zealand has with the introduced possum is particularily polarising. To slaughter them or not to slaughter them, and how. There is a perceived risk of the transfer of TB to the bovine stock on forest fringes, therefore the possums must go. Not only this but they strip the native forest, and kill birdlife. The current solution of 1080 poison control is, in my opinion, a total reflection on how the western society tends to deal with most things. With a heavy handed approach that has no consideration for total impact or possible long term effects on the issue at hand, but also the bigger picture regarding the inter-related nature of life. Not only do the possums die, but also do the deer, the goats and birds. Basically everything that might stumble upon it. Not such a selective solution really. Perhaps we are at a stage that if it is really that necessary to cull back the possum numbers, instead of polluting the rivers and the ground with this incredible toxic material we just go back to the old fashioned, reasonable 'price on the head'. If decent money is to be made from killing possums for their fur for instance, I am sure alot more folks would be out there engaged in the slaughter, and the numbers would decline quickly. Never under estimate the power of human greed. Long term I would imagine that this would have to be a lot cheaper a solution than helicopters, chemicals and legal battles. Not only would a culling for money scheme mean a cleaner execution for the possums, but it would also get more people out into the forest, greatly raising the awareness of what is actually going on out there. Simply poisoning everything has far greater, long term effects, some of which have probably not been considered to be important.The butterfly effect is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in a certain location. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. While the butterfly does not "cause" the tornado in the sense of providing the energy for the tornado, it does "cause" it in the sense that the flap of its wings is an essential part of the initial conditions resulting in a tornado, and without that flap that particular tornado would not have existed. The article that sparked this thought process from the NZPA: (note the twist at the end)
Ok so here is the kicker as I see it. The last 2 lines of the article are clear. Overdoses of sodium nitrate are poisonous and cause genetic mutations , yet this acknowledged toxic chemical is widely found already in our food. Great. It is like being a little bit dead, or a little bit pregnant. You are or you are not. If an additive is that toxic that it kills and mutates that which it does not kill, do we really need it in our food in any quantity. After all, you are what you eat!
|





Follow David on Twitter.
Poisoning our world
This news just disturbs me, what is it about our society that feels that we must control and inflict our opinions on everything around us?