Bioplastic is a new type of plastic that scientists have recently discovered and that we are working into. These plastics are being made using crops, which it why it is called “Green” and is biofriendly. It is made using sugar coming from corn, sugar cane, or sugar beets. Most other plastics are made from oil, which is then transformed into pollution. Compared to this, this “Green” plastic might seem like perfection. As perfect as this plastic might seem, it’s not completely unharmful to the environment. Just like normal plastic, it needs electricity to be produced. We still need electricity in the factories which still is harmful to the environment. Bioplastic cannot be recycled together with normal plastic. This means that we will have to make different places for it to be recycled, and have more environmental costs. Also, where will we grow it? All our fields are used for food, to feed the human population. If we use more fields, more rainforest, to grow corn for plastic, won’t we just make the impacts on the environment worse? And if we start using all our fields to grow for example corn – what will we eat? If we overuse this plastic, is there any possibility that we might use all the corn fields for plastic and not have enough corn to feed the human population? This is a very debatable topic. Is bioplastic really as fantastic as it sounds?
I think that bioplastic is great, although it has some cons. It might not be the perfect solution to saving the planet, but it does have less impact on the environment than normal plastic. In a way, the fact that it is made from crops and not crude oil does make it biofriendly, although not in the indirect way. I think that we should switch to bioplastic and see how it goes. It might be the perfect way to save energy, save oil and possibly reduce pollution. We can use this plastic while scientists try to figure out another plastic with better uses.
What are your impressions of how science of food industry, technology of food industry, and society are interrelated?
Well, everything is related. Food industry is growing a lot faster than it used to. We get more food in less time and space. For example, chickens today are grown a lot fatter and bigger than chickens 40 years ago, and they only take half the amount of time. All of our animals are crammed together with the fat on their bodies and all the extra fat food. Then, we leave the chopping, skinning, cleaning, separating, killing and packaging to the technological part. This enables us to do even less work and more of the eating and benefitting while our poor preys suffer. The other benefit of technology doing all the gruesome parts for factories is that they don’t have to hire workers, and therefore don’t have to pay them. Then the consumers and society come in. Factories make a very great amount of food for a purpose- to sell it to hungry consumers who want turkey on their thanksgiving tables. Consumers judge food and in a way they decide which products we should make and stores should sell. If nobody bought the brand of “Boom” meat but everyone bought the “Bam” meat, the “Boom” meat wouldn’t get enough money to keep going. In the end, only the “Bam” meat would be sold in the store. This is how consumers affect food industries. That gets affected by technology. That ends up on a table with a pinch of salt and butter. This is how food industry, technology and society are related.
How did the film describe science & technology as a positive or negative impact on society or the environment?
The movie described science and technology as a negative impact on society and the environment. Technology mixed with science has made factories able to slaughter, clean, skin, package, grow and produce animals a lot faster than it used to. Factories can produce a lot more food in a lot less time and space. Factories don’t have to hire workers with the machinery, and it is a lot more fast, clean and efficient. Technologies have only made us greedier and lazier, and in the end factories still manage to grow big and gain loads of money.
How do our consumer choices affect what is out on the market and therefore, our own species survival?
Our consumer choices are quite important to factories. For example, if consumers (us) decided to only get the meat with the blue packaging, the meats with the red, orange and green packaging would disappear. The meat with the blue packaging and the factory producing the same meat would blossom. However, there is more to it than only consumer’s favorites being sold in stores. If consumers like and buy the wrong and worse product, the whole planet could suffer. If we only bought genetically modified stuff, products with tons of packaging and products from endangered species, the whole planet would suffer. This can also be reversed, the whole planet could also benefit from consumers choices. It all depends on the consumers and what choices they make.
How are we as humans connected to how the Earth is used?
Humans are the main cause to the problems our planet it facing right now. We have polluted many ecosystems and destroyed many natural habitats. We have caused extinction of infinite numbers of animal species and we have caused global warming, with the hole in the ozone. Only humans can make a change to the planet, so we should be the noes fixing the damage our race has done.
When do we say "no" to more high tech devices and go back to what caused the problem in the first place? Why are we only into the "HOW" things work and not the "WHY" things don't? What did this farmer mean?
I think that this means that while we try to make things like mass production and animal harassment better we only think of things to make it more developed. We never stop and say “I don’t think the idea to have machines do a man’s’ work is bad, let’s stop it.” If we think something is bad, we don’t stop what we’re doing- take away the problem altogether- but we make it “better” by making it more advanced. In the end we find ourselves in the same situation only a lot worse.
What is the difference between natural farming and industrial farming? Which is better? Are they both necessary for human survival? Why or why not?
Natural farming is when we produce food in reasonable amounts, don’t abuse animals and only make as much as we need. This is what humans have been doing up till the latest 40 years. Then industrial farming started. Industrial farming is when we produce food in exaggerated amounts, produce animals in no time at all and cram them into tiny amounts of space. We use technology to do all the gruesome and disgusting parts of producing meat. We eat and eat and eat and get fatter. Natural farming is a lot better than industrial farming. Right now, I would say they are both necessary for human survival, but if we gradually took away industrial farming and had more natural farms, I think that the human race would be able to survive.
If technology and industry have improved so much that we are getting faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper, how are science and technology held responsible for improving or ruining human health and survival?
Science and technology are very big factors to us getting faster, fatter, bigger and cheaper. More technology has caused to get lazier. Why brush your teeth when you can get an electronic toothbrush for only $5.99? Why mow your lawn by hand when there are machines sold just for that purpose at $33.99? Why slaughter animals ourselves instead of having machines do all the work for us? We don’t need to pay workers! Although these may seem like steps forwards in human technology they are actually small steps backward that grow larger by great numbers. Science and technology have helped us throughout time, but right now I think that it’s time to stop and that we’ve crossed the line a little too far.
What economic costs, environmental costs, ethical costs, health costs, and cultural costs did you observe while watching the film?
Everything has some sort of cost. Although it might not seem so, every single thing affects another in a tiny way. For example, if you picked a blossom of a tree the cost in nature would be that there would be one less flower, one less fruit, one less seed, and potentially one less tree. This may grow to one less habitat and one less home. Just because of the leaf. The cost of this economically would be that there would be one less fruit for farmers to sell and a few dollars less in the farmers pocket. Even tiny things have costs.
Finally, state your final thoughts about this film and any changes you see happening in the food industry in the future or even your own eating habits.
I think that the movie made a correct statement when it said that “you will never look at dinner the same way again.” I saw most of the movie (I didn’t watch the most gruesome parts) and still I hesitate when taking some ham on my sandwich or have a burger. I am actually now seriously thinking about becoming a vegetarian. I feel so bad for all the animals that get killed because of me. However, it is part of the human nature to eat meat - but we should just not let eating control ourselves and leave the world to making mass production of food using technology. I think that we have to control ourselves and only take or fair share of the worlds preys, resources, and food.
A new study has showed that Bumblebees like growing plants with red flowers or flowers with stripes along their veins better than normal ones. This has proven useful for farmers who need bees to pollinate their crops, or just for normal people who need to pollinate the plants in our garden. This was first discovered using the field observations of the snapdragon, or the Antirrinum majus, at the John Innes Centre of UK. Bumblebees are essential since they pollinate crops and plants and make it possible for them to reproduce."Stripes following the veins of flowers are one of the most common floral pigmentation patterns so we thought there must be some advantage for pollination," said Professor Cathie Martin. In simple language this means that the most common flower color patterns are when the stripes follow the veins, so we had already predicted that this had some advantage to pollination. An experiment has been made in which students record how many times an average bumblebee visits each plant. The flowers with venation (vein) patterns that were either red or striped were visited a lot more than the ones that were white or pink. The number of flowers visited per plant increased, too. It is important to understand how bees live and to find out more about them. Bees give us a lot of the food on our silver platters, whether it is direct or indirect. A decrease in the Bumblebee population could have severe effects in the human population, too.
I thought this article was pretty cool. If I were a bee I would just go to the plant with the most nutrients to make honey- I haven’t really thought about how to find this plant. The article gave a really detailed explanation about why stripy plants would be easier to find for bees, but I don’t really understand how plants with red flowers attract bees more than ones with pink or white flowers. Maybe they’re colorblind, and red is a color that they can see really well. I just made my own theory! I also think that it’s pretty amazing that if something big happened to make the bumblebee population decrease rapidly it would have effects on the human race. Somehow it’s hard for me to think that bees play such a big role in our lives. I mean sure, we’ll miss honey, but we can live without that. I don’t really eat plants that have to be pollinated either, since it’s mostly flowers. Nowadays farmers plant their own crops at the beginning of every season- they don’t need bees to plant them for them. Bees sure are a mystery.
