The universe may not think it’s all-intrusive, according to the Vedas. Hence, its relationship with nature and us is substantial — even when one is not familiar with their teachings. The Vedas celebrate the environment for each of us, whatever our belief, or ideology. This is, by itself, the Vedic foundation of truth — a simple reality for all reasons and seasons. Its raison d’être? Contexts are eternal; so also is credence.
Let’s fast-forward to the far-too clichéd argument in the times we now live in. That what we are attempting to do is impossible. This is a perfect summary on the etymologies of how we have, with technological advance, reduced human thinking into a tool; also, gadget.
For the sake of argument, we’d delve into the dominant school of thought — that “technology conserves, not destroys the environment.” To paraphrase Norman Borlaugh, PhD, father of the Green Revolution, “Environmentalists [unswervingly] seek simple solutions to complex problems. The pollution of the environment, for instance, is the result of every human activity as well as whims of nature. It is a tragic error to believe that agricultural chemicals are the prime factors in the deterioration of our environment.”
Yes, the agrochemical industry has, for long, been the whipping boy of ecologists. It’s not long ago that agricultural specialists had this to say, “Some of the worst environmental abuse is occurring under traditional, not intensive, agriculture.” They argued, “The spread of the Sahara and soil erosion, and flooding in Asia, partially due to overgrazing and deforestation, are evidence of the heavy price often paid when traditional agriculture is asked to attempt to sustain increasing numbers of people.”
Now, let’s explore water — the elixir of life. The five continents receive more than 125,000 cubic kilometres of fresh water, every year, in the form of precipitation. Of this, 75,000 cubic kilometres are lost to evaporation, each year, leaving a net influx of 55,000 cubic kilometres of water on ground, annually. Over 30-35 years ago, approximately 4,500 cubic kilometres were used for all human needs, while nearly one-third of it were lost to pollution. The situation today is grim. Research suggests that all the available fresh water in use today won’t last for too long, if the present worldwide usage trends continue. The inference is profound — some parts of the world are already severely short of water and drawing from underground pools at a much rapid rate than the water that could be replenished.
What about food and the most effective way of increasing its production? Two major schools of thought emerge — one, which places faith in modern technology; and, two, the alternative stream, which argues that high-tech agriculture is not sustainable even in a country like the US. The latter’s riposte: “Only organic agricultural methods will be sustainable in the long run; these methods can efficiently produce all the food needed to end hunger.”
To look at history. The total recorded food production worldwide was around 4,000 million metric tonnes — over forty years ago. Over half by weight among them was grain — an unimaginable amount of food. Well, grain alone would have been sufficient to fill a one-foot-diameter tube that encircled the living planet nearly 800 times. And, yet, what did we have, as we have now — the sombre picture of starvation. The paradoxes are as glaringly evident as global warming.
Also, consider energy — a prerequisite — to make the world a better place to live in. As David Pimentel, PhD, a biologist and energy specialist, observes, “While one may doubt the sincerity of the US efforts to share its agricultural technology so that the rest of the world can eat and live as it does, one must be realistic about the resources available to accomplish this mission.” Research from Cornell University suggests that you’d need about 140 gallons of fuel to plant, grow and harvest an acre of corn. With fuel shortages and high prices to come, you’d wonder how developing countries would be able to afford such a technology.
Is there a way out of this formidable imbroglio? Maybe — albeit there’s no solution that could be termed impeccable. The best way, if at all there is any, is to aim at restoring balance in life and environment — one that would depend on how inequitable power structures become more equitable. Of a transfer of power from the rich to the poor and from the powerful to the powerless. Of changing social and economic structures that would contribute much in resolving problems. Is this asking for just too much?
— First published in India First
